My point is that no backporting should have to take place. Wido and SBP should be convinced of the improved way of working and we shouldn't try to patch a less ideal way of working into something acceptable if we already have a good thing. I will start -1 any patch to 4.8 that could also go against 4.7. I have not with 4.6 yet and that was a mistake. We are reversing the improvements of our release process.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > > > > Daan, > > > > Ok, that sounds good, but at this point it's really up to the people > writing actual code. > > Wido has already voted against it and SBP guys don't seem too keen on it > either. > > > > Exactly, we can say we want an LTS, but then we need a RM. > > and FWIW, I would think we want to LTS starting with 4.6.2. > > We need to make sure all upgrade to 4.6.2 work and start there. > > The reason being that subsequent upgrade and LTS maintenance should be > much easier as the upstream ( 4.7+) gets the benefit of the new workflow. > > > > > > -- > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > > Nux! > > www.nux.ro > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >> To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2016 13:36:06 > >> Subject: Re: LTS release or not > > > >> Any version that is not a year old should be LTS in my view. We must as > >> reviewers take care that fixes are merged on the oldest branch first and > >> then merged forward along the line. To me this was the whole purpose of > the > >> changes we did to our release process. Are we abandonning this now to > >> return to fixing on seperate branches and have the same fix in multiple > >> commitishes? Excuse my Dutch: That sucks. > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > >> > >>> I think LTS is a good idea, but I am afraid we'd be spreading ourselves > >>> too thin with maintaining that in addition to mainline. > >>> > >>> The way I see it, one way to have this sorted is by means of commercial > >>> offerings from companies such as ShapeBlue. > >>> > >>> What lifetime are we talking rougly for an LTS release? 6 months, 12 > >>> months? > >>> > >>> Lucian > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >>> > >>> Nux! > >>> www.nux.ro > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>> To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>> Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2016 13:19:48 > >>>> Subject: Re: LTS release or not > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> * Fix must be important. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Who defines what 'important' is? > >>>>> > >>>>> "must be important" means we do not backport trivial things like > typos > >>>>> in docs and so forth, only important things. And I would say > important > >>>>> in a common sense. But it doesn't mean that all important fixes will > be > >>>>> backportable, because they may not be necessary "obvious and small". > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> if it is really important it should be fixed on the LTS first and > then > >>>> merged to 'bleeding edge' if still applicable. > >>>> > >>>> Limitation of warranty: I really don't like this discussion as it > >>> negates > >>>> most of the hard weekend work I did over the last half year. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Daan > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daan > > -- Daan
