Hi, Paul. All my fixes to 4.10 are in pr: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2320
I think it should be organized somehow with PR per bug, just don't have enough time to do it with 4.10, but I sent all PRs for bugs found separately to master with jira tickets and all-in-one PR to 4.10. 23 нояб. 2017 г. 4:06 ПП пользователь "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> написал: > I'll add 'update the downloads page' to the wiki update... > > But for the rest of Ivan's issues, sounds like we need a 4.10.1 as well as > a 4.11 > > Are there fixes in the master branch for the issues that you are seeing > Ivan (and are there bugs logged in Jira as blockers if not?) > > > Kind regards, > > Paul Angus > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com] > Sent: 23 November 2017 09:01 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date? > > I agree Ivan > http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html makes no mention of LTS and > provides no guidance on benefits of different versions > > Kind regards > Giles > > giles.sir...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com] > Sent: 23 November 2017 01:45 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date? > > Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here. > According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website > content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly > state: > > Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous LTS > 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y > > Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y > > The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need > new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs > features. > > E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found > windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled > back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and > realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production > and happy. > > Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions > and unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even > templates created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is > critical/blocker bug. > The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded > all users lost tons of templates. > > 22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" < > wstev...@cloudops.com> > написал: > > Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position. > Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM? :P > > *Will Stevens* > CTO > > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > > > HI All, > > > > The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year > > (at the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly). > > > > So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then > > current version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for > > which would we would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 > > years. Thereby giving end users a version of CloudStack which would > > receive bug fixes for an extended period. > > > > This year however, the current version in January was the same as the > > current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well > > as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 > > (hence the 4.9.3 release) > > > > I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to > > support 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything > > really to 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that > > nothing is happening. > > > > With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' > > would only be 12 months from release. Which I think is really too > > short a > period > > for the majority of enterprises. Although we haven't written it this > > way, the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'. > > > > So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are. The wiki page looks > > like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that) > > > > > > But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM > > volunteer to get things going. (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big > > mouth in that position). > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Paul Angus > > > > > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > > www.shapeblue.com > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com] > > Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00 > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date? > > > > Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the > > better for adopters. > > > > 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - > > Exoscale" < ma...@exoscale.ch> написал: > > > > > It makes more sense to me too. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote: > > > > Hi all > > > > > > > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according > > > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS > > > > > > > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace > > > > has slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was > > > > the reason for the LTS). > > > > > > > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the > > > > EOL in relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the > > > > current LTS is +6 months after the next LTS release." > > > > > > > > Small example: > > > > > > > > Current LTS 4.9 > > > > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10. > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > René > > > > > >
