Open Stack

The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact that upgrades are hugely time consuming still.

If you want to reduce the push for number #2 and help developers get their wish of getting features into users hands sooner, the path to upgrade really needs to be much less painful.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Erik McCormick [emccormick at cirrusseven.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:21 AM
To: Blair Bethwaite
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); openstack-oper.
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators]  Upstream LTS Releases

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite
<blair.bethwaite at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across
> -dev and -operators.
>
> One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as
> though there are two issues being discussed under the one banner:
> 1) maintain old releases for longer
> 2) do stable releases less frequently
>
> It would be interesting to understand if the people who want longer
> maintenance windows would be helped by #2.
>

I would like to hear from people who do *not* want #2 and why not.
What are the benefits of 6 months vs. 1 year? I have heard objections
in the hallway track, but I have struggled to retain the rationale for
more than 10 seconds. I think this may be more of a religious
discussion that could take a while though.

#1 is something we can act on right now with the eventual goal of
being able to skip releases entirely. We are addressing the
maintenance of the old issue right now. As we get farther down the
road of fast-forward upgrade tooling, then we will be able to please
those wishing for a slower upgrade cadence, and those that want to
stay on the bleeding edge simultaneously.

-Erik

> On 14 November 2017 at 09:25, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Bogdan Dobrelya's message of 2017-11-14 17:08:31 +0100:
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> > What is the most worrying is the exact "take over" process. Does it mean that
>>> > the teams will give away the +2 power to a different team? Or will our (small)
>>> > stable teams still be responsible for landing changes? If so, will they have to
>>> > learn how to debug 3rd party CI jobs?
>>> >
>>> > Generally, I'm scared of both overloading the teams and losing the control over
>>> > quality at the same time :) Probably the final proposal will clarify it..
>>>
>>> The quality of backported fixes is expected to be a direct (and only?)
>>> interest of those new teams of new cores, coming from users and
>>> operators and vendors. The more parties to establish their 3rd party
>>
>> We have an unhealthy focus on "3rd party" jobs in this discussion. We
>> should not assume that they are needed or will be present. They may be,
>> but we shouldn't build policy around the assumption that they will. Why
>> would we have third-party jobs on an old branch that we don't have on
>> master, for instance?
>>
>>> checking jobs, the better proposed changes communicated, which directly
>>> affects the quality in the end. I also suppose, contributors from ops
>>> world will likely be only struggling to see things getting fixed, and
>>> not new features adopted by legacy deployments they're used to maintain.
>>> So in theory, this works and as a mainstream developer and maintainer,
>>> you need no to fear of losing control over LTS code :)
>>>
>>> Another question is how to not block all on each over, and not push
>>> contributors away when things are getting awry, jobs failing and merging
>>> is blocked for a long time, or there is no consensus reached in a code
>>> review. I propose the LTS policy to enforce CI jobs be non-voting, as a
>>> first step on that way, and giving every LTS team member a core rights
>>> maybe? Not sure if that works though.
>>
>> I'm not sure what change you're proposing for CI jobs and their voting
>> status. Do you mean we should make the jobs non-voting as soon as the
>> branch passes out of the stable support period?
>>
>> Regarding the review team, anyone on the review team for a branch
>> that goes out of stable support will need to have +2 rights in that
>> branch. Otherwise there's no point in saying that they're maintaining
>> the branch.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> ~Blairo
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev