Adrian Turjak wrote: > I worry that moving to a yearly release is actually going to make things > worse for deployers and there will be less encouragement for them to be > on more up to date and bug fixed code. Not to mention, no one will trust > or use the intermediary releases unless they are coordinated and tested > much like the current release process. That means that anyone is who > upgrading faster will be forced to wait for yearly releases because they > are the only ones they know to be 'stable'. > > I'm actually one of the 20% developers upstream (although I'm trying to > change that), and my experience is actually the opposite. I like the > shorter release times, I'd find that longer releases will make it much > harder and longer waits to get anything in. With the 6 month cadence I > know that if I miss a deadline for one release, the next one is around > the corner. I've never had issue following up in the next release, and > often if a feature or bug fix misses a release, in my experience the > core team does a good job of making it a bit more of a priority. With > yearly releases I'd be waiting for a year to get my code into a stable > coordinated release, and then longer for that code to be deployed as > part of an upgrade to a stable release. And I do often miss release > deadlines, and that yearly wait would drive me mad. > [...]
That is excellent feedback. Thanks Adrian! -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
