Excerpts from Octave J. Orgeron's message of 2017-05-05 15:35:16 -0600: > Hi Matt, > > And this is actually part of the problem for vendors. Many Oracle > engineers, including myself, have tried to get features and fixes pushed > upstream. While that may sound easy, the reality is that it isn't! In > many cases, it takes months for us to get something in or we get shot > down altogether. Here are the big issues we run into: > > * If it's in support of Oracle specific technologies such as Solaris, > ZFS, MySQL Cluster, etc. we are often shunned away because it's not > Linux or "mainstream" enough. A great example is how our Nova > drivers for Solaris Zones, Kernel Zones, and LDoms are turned away. > So we have to spend extra cycles maintaining our patches because > they are shunned away from getting into the gate. > * If we release an OpenStack distribution and a year later, a major > CVE security bug comes along.. we will patch it. But is there a way > for us to push those changes back in? No, because the branch for > that release is EOL'd and burned. So we have to maintain our own > copy of the repos so we have something to work against. > * Taking a release and productizing it takes more than just pulling > the git repo and building packages. It requires integrated testing > on a given OS distribution, hardware, and infrastructure. We have to > test it against our own products and handle upgrades from the > previous product release. We have to make sure it works for > customers. Then we have to spin up our distribution, documentation, etc. > > Lastly, just throwing resources at this isn't going to solve the > cultural or logistics problems. Everyone has to work together and Oracle
Can you expand on what you see as cultural and logistical problems? Doug > will continue to try and work with the community. If other vendors, > customers, and operators are willing to work together to build an LTS > branch and the governance around it, then Oracle will support that > effort. But to go it alone I think is risky for any single individual or > vendor. It's pretty obvious that over the past year, a lot of vendors > that were ponying up efforts have had to pull the plug on their > investments. A lot of the issues that I've out-lined effect the > bottom-line for OpenStack vendors. This is not about which vendor does > more or less or who has the bigger budget to spend. It's about making it > easier for vendors to support and for customers to consume. > > Octave > > On 5/5/2017 2:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > > If you're spending exorbitant amounts of time patching in your forks > > to keep up with the upstream code, then you're doing the wrong thing. > > Upstream your changes, or work against the APIs, or try to get the > > APIs you need upstream to build on for your downstream features. > > Otherwise this is all just burden you've put on yourself and I can't > > justify an LTS support model because it might make someone's > > downstream fork strategy easier to manage. As noted earlier, I don't > > see Oracle developers leading the way upstream. If you want to see > > major changes, then contribute those resources, get involved and make > > a lasting effect. > > __________________________________________________________________________ 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