[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Jeremy Stanley fungi at yuggoth.org
Mon Nov 9 19:57:01 UTC 2015

On 2015-11-09 19:35:21 +0000 (+0000), Kevin Bringard (kevinbri) wrote:
> Perhaps a good solution would be for the foundation to allow a
> process by which vendors may maintain "canonical" (no pun
> intended) stable branches which are community endorsed. Then
> everyone has a common stable resource to pull from, but the onus
> for maintaining it lies on the ones who more directly benefit from
> it: the vendors.

I'm not sure what you imagine "the foundation" really is and what
influence it has over any of this.

"The community" allows a process by which vendors (who are also part
of "the community!") may collaborate on endorsed stable branches.
And yes, the onus for maintaining them already lies on the vendors
and anyone else who has an interest in seeing stable branches work.
These days we lack a critical mass of people (vendors or otherwise)
collaborating past about one year after release, hence our present
EOL cadence. As they extend the duration of their interest in
collaborating on this, we're able to extend the amount of time we
keep the stable branches around in our CI, known-working and
"endorsed" by our community.

So in effect, what you describe already exists and is improving: the
duration we've kept stable branches open has, on balance, increased
over the life of OpenStack. Perhaps it's not fast enough for many
downstream consumers, but they too are part of "the community" and
welcome to collaborate on maintaining this (or any) resource on
which they depend. It's all a matter of individual priority.
Jeremy Stanley

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list