[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases
emccormick at cirrusseven.com
Wed Nov 15 00:10:00 UTC 2017
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, John Dickinson <me at not.mn> wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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.
> What does it take for this to never happen again? No operator should need to plan and execute an upgrade for a whole year to upgrade one year's worth of code development.
> We don't need new policies, new teams, more releases, fewer releases, or anything like that. The goal is NOT "let's have an LTS release". The goal should be "How do we make sure Mattieu and everyone else in the world can actually deploy and use the software we are writing?"
> Can we drop the entire LTS discussion for now and focus on "make upgrades take less than a year" instead? After we solve that, let's come back around to LTS versions, if needed. I know there's already some work around that. Let's focus there and not be distracted about the best bureaucracy for not deleting two-year-old branches.
> /me puts on asbestos pants
OK, let's tone down the flamethrower there a bit Mr. Asbestos Pants
;). The LTS push is not lieu of the quest for simpler upgrades. There
is also an effort to enable fast-forward upgrades going on. However,
this is a non-trivial task that will take many cycles to get to a
point where it's truly what you're looking for. The long term desire
of having LTS releases encompasses being able to hop from one LTS to
the next without stopping over. We just aren't there yet.
However, what we *can* do is make it so when mgagne finally gets to
Newton (or Ocata or wherever) on his next run, the code isn't
completely EOL and it can still receive some important patches. This
can be accomplished in the very near term, and that is what a certain
subset of us are focused on.
We still desire to skip versions. We still desire to have upgrades be
non-disruptive and non-destructive. This is just one step on the way
to that. This discussion has been going on for cycle after cycle with
little more than angst between ops and devs to show for it. This is
the first time we've had progress on this ball of goo that really
matters. Let's all be proactive contributors to the solution.
Those interested in having a say in the policy, put your $0.02 here:
Peace, Love, and International Grooviness,
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-operators