[Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

John Dickinson me at not.mn
Fri Nov 10 22:51:08 UTC 2017

On 7 Nov 2017, at 15:28, Erik McCormick wrote:

> Hello Ops folks,
> This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and very
> productive session about how to go about keeping a selection of past
> releases available and maintained for a longer period of time (LTS).
> There was agreement in the room that this could be accomplished by
> moving the responsibility for those releases from the Stable Branch
> team down to those who are already creating and testing patches for
> old releases: The distros, deployers, and operators.
> The concept, in general, is to create a new set of cores from these
> groups, and use 3rd party CI to validate patches. There are lots of
> details to be worked out yet, but our amazing UC (User Committee) will
> be begin working out the details.
> Please take a look at the Etherpad from the session if you'd like to
> see the details. More importantly, if you would like to contribute to
> this effort, please add your name to the list starting on line 133.
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SYD-forum-upstream-lts-releases
> Thanks to everyone who participated!
> Cheers,
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

I'm not a fan of the current proposal. I feel like the discussion jumped into a policy/procedure solution without getting much more feedback from operators. The room heard "ops want LTS" and we now have a new governance model to work out.

What I heard from ops in the room is that they want (to start) one release a year who's branch isn't deleted after a year. What if that's exactly what we did? I propose that OpenStack only do one release a year instead of two. We still keep N-2 stable releases around. We still do backports to all open stable branches. We still do all the things we're doing now, we just do it once a year instead of twice.

Looking at current deliverables in the openstack releases repo, most (by nearly a factor of 2x) are using "cycle-with-intermediary".

    john at europa:~/Documents/openstack_releases/deliverables/pike(master)$ grep release-model * | cut -d ':' -f 2- | sort | uniq -c
      44 release-model: cycle-trailing
     147 release-model: cycle-with-intermediary
      37 release-model: cycle-with-milestones
       2 release-model: untagged

Any deliverable that using this model is already successfully dealing with skip-level upgrades. Skip-level upgrades are already identified as needed and prioritized functionality in projects that don't yet support them. Let's keep working on getting that functionality supported across all OpenStack deliverables. Let's move to one LTS release a year. And let's get all project deliverables to start using cycle-with-intermediary releases.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20171110/33329bdf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20171110/33329bdf/attachment.sig>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list