-----Original Message----- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:04 AM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Support lifetime
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:34:41AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >> >> On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 03:00 PM, Chip Childers wrote: >> >> I stated my opinion on this previously [1], but for the record again: >> >> >> >> I would suggest that we only do bug-fix releases for: >> >> >> >> - The latest feature release of our active major version number (i.e.: >> >> 4.x) >> >> To make sure I get this right: >> >> So Once we release 4.2 we will only bug fix 4.1 and stop bug fixing 4.0 ? > > That's what I'm proposing, yes. > >> >> >> - The latest feature release of our last major version number >> >> (doesn't exist today, but will be 4.x when / if we bump to 5.0) >> >> Once we jump to 5.X we will bug fix the latest 4.x release (if it's 4.2, we >> will stop bug fixing 4.1) ? >> > > That's also what I'm proposing, yup. > >> The really crucial part for me is to make sure we have a really solid/tested >> upgrade path. We cannot leave anyone out in the cold of a "unsupported" >> release. >> > > Indeed. Upgrades remain critical to this project. We need to > constantly ensure that we have upgrade paths available from any > version to the latest version. > >> >> >> >> Just my opinion though. Others? >> >> >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/quzgjne44prl5m2c >> > >> > Given the current levels of participation on dot-releases, I think >> > this is the most realistic approach that's good for the community. >> > >> > +1 >> > > So software typically has several stages: > Does end of support mean both of these things simultaneously. > No more bugfixes > No more security fixes > So wearing your enterprise software consumer hat - does a support lifetime of > approximately 12 months make sense? (not saying it doesn't, just asking the > question) Under the above proposal we'd end support for the 4.0 line after > 4.2 releases. (I'd personally say we > should add a month (so that EOL is > one month after 4.n+2 releases, with the understanding that 4.n is likely to > only receive security fixes if any during that extra one month window) > --David I think a 12 month support is reasonable for bug fixes and security patches. Now if we adhere to a release schedule of 4 months, we will have 3 new releases every year, within 24 month cycle, there is going to be 6 versions of CloudStack to either release or maintain. Does anyone else besides myself thinks it's a little too much to handle?
