> -----Original Message----- > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:05 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Support lifetime > > > > -----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? >
If I do the math right, 34 (not 36) months from now, we are going to maintain 9 versions of cloudstack. Forward looking, it gets complicated. We release 3 versions per year, and yet only 1 rolls off the support.
