Open Stack

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
> 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.
>

+1000

We are upgrading from Kilo to Mitaka. It took 1 year to plan and
execute the upgrade. (and we skipped a version)
Scheduling all the relevant internal teams is a monumental task
because we don't have dedicated teams for those projects and they have
other priorities.
Upgrading affects a LOT of our systems, some we don't fully have
control over. And it can takes months to get new deployment on those
systems. (and after, we have to test compatibility, of course)

So I guess you can understand my frustration when I'm told to upgrade
more often and that skipping versions is discouraged/unsupported.
At the current pace, I'm just falling behind. I *need* to skip
versions to keep up.

So for our next upgrades, we plan on skipping even more versions if
the database migration allows it. (except for Nova which is a huge
PITA to be honest due to CellsV1)
I just don't see any other ways to keep up otherwise.

--
Mathieu