On 14/11/17 15:10 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2017-11-14 14:01:58 -0600:On 11/14/2017 01:28 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:>> 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. > > I'm not assuming bad intentions, not at all. But there is a lot of involved in a > decision whether to make a backport or not. Will these people be able to > evaluate a risk of each patch? Do they have enough context on how that release > was implemented and what can break? Do they understand why feature backports are > bad? Why they should not skip (supported) releases when backporting? > > I know a lot of very reasonable people who do not understand the things above > really well. I would hope that the core team for upstream LTS would be the (hopefully experienced) people doing the downstream work that already happens within the various distros. ChrisPresumably those are the same people we've been trying to convince to work on the existing stable branches for the last 5 years. What makes these extended branches more appealing to those people than the existing branches? Is it the reduced requirements on maintaining test jobs? Or maybe some other policy change that could be applied to the stable branches?
Guessing based on the feedback so far, I would say that these branches are more appealing because they are the ones these folks are actually running in production. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
