Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) are supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS. Support in this context means patches, updates and commercial support (for a fee). For paying customers 3 years of patches, updates and commercial support for April releases, (Kilo, O, Q etc..) is also available.
Best Regards Mark Baker On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:03 PM, James King <ja...@agentultra.com> wrote: > +1 for some sort of LTS release system. > > Telcos and risk-averse organizations working with sensitive data might not > be able to upgrade nearly as fast as the releases keep coming out. From the > summit in Japan it sounds like companies running some fairly critical > public infrastructure on Openstack aren’t going to be upgrading to Kilo any > time soon. > > Public clouds might even benefit from this. I know we (Dreamcompute) are > working towards tracking the upstream releases closer… but it’s not > feasible for everyone. > > I’m not sure whether the resources exist to do this but it’d be a nice to > have, imho. > > > On Nov 6, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Donald Talton <donaldtal...@fico.com> > wrote: > > > > I like the idea of LTS releases. > > > > Speaking to my own deployments, there are many new features we are not > interested in, and wouldn't be, until we can get organizational (cultural) > change in place, or see stability and scalability. > > > > We can't rely on, or expect, that orgs will move to the CI/CD model for > infra, when they aren't even ready to do that for their own apps. It's > still a new "paradigm" for many of us. CI/CD requires a considerable > engineering effort, and given that the decision to "switch" to OpenStack is > often driven by cost-savings over enterprise virtualization, adding those > costs back in via engineering salaries doesn't make fiscal sense. > > > > My big argument is that if Icehouse/Juno works and is stable, and I > don't need newer features from subsequent releases, why would I expend the > effort until such a time that I do want those features? Thankfully there > are vendors that understand this. Keeping up with the release cycle just > for the sake of keeping up with the release cycle is exhausting. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tony Breeds [mailto:t...@bakeyournoodle.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:15 PM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List > > Cc: openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > > Subject: [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for > longer. > > > > Hello all, > > > > I'll start by acknowledging that this is a big and complex issue and I > do not claim to be across all the view points, nor do I claim to be > particularly persuasive ;P > > > > Having stated that, I'd like to seek constructive feedback on the idea > of keeping Juno around for a little longer. During the summit I spoke to a > number of operators, vendors and developers on this topic. There was some > support and some "That's crazy pants!" responses. I clearly didn't make it > around to everyone, hence this email. > > > > Acknowledging my affiliation/bias: I work for Rackspace in the private > cloud team. We support a number of customers currently running Juno that > are, for a variety of reasons, challenged by the Kilo upgrade. > > > > Here is a summary of the main points that have come up in my > conversations, both for and against. > > > > Keep Juno: > > * According to the current user survey[1] Icehouse still has the > > biggest install base in production clouds. Juno is second, which makes > > sense. If we EOL Juno this month that means ~75% of production clouds > > will be running an EOL'd release. Clearly many of these operators have > > support contracts from their vendor, so those operators won't be left > > completely adrift, but I believe it's the vendors that benefit from > keeping > > Juno around. By working together *in the community* we'll see the best > > results. > > > > * We only recently EOL'd Icehouse[2]. Sure it was well communicated, > but we > > still have a huge Icehouse/Juno install base. > > > > For me this is pretty compelling but for balance .... > > > > Keep the current plan and EOL Juno Real Soon Now: > > * There is also no ignoring the elephant in the room that with HP > stepping > > back from public cloud there are questions about our CI capacity, and > > keeping Juno will have an impact on that critical resource. > > > > * Juno (and other stable/*) resources have a non-zero impact on *every* > > project, esp. @infra and release management. We need to ensure this > > isn't too much of a burden. This mostly means we need enough > trustworthy > > volunteers. > > > > * Juno is also tied up with Python 2.6 support. When > > Juno goes, so will Python 2.6 which is a happy feeling for a number of > > people, and more importantly reduces complexity in our project > > infrastructure. > > > > * Even if we keep Juno for 6 months or 1 year, that doesn't help vendors > > that are "on the hook" for multiple years of support, so for that case > > we're really only delaying the inevitable. > > > > * Some number of the production clouds may never migrate from $version, > in > > which case longer support for Juno isn't going to help them. > > > > > > I'm sure these question were well discussed at the VYR summit where we > set the EOL date for Juno, but I was new then :) What I'm asking is: > > > > 1) Is it even possible to keep Juno alive (is the impact on the project > as > > a whole acceptable)? > > > > Assuming a positive answer: > > > > 2) Who's going to do the work? > > - Me, who else? > > 3) What do we do if people don't actually do the work but we as a > community > > have made a commitment? > > 4) If we keep Juno alive for $some_time, does that imply we also bump the > > life cycle on Kilo and liberty and Mitaka etc? > > > > Yours Tony. > > > > [1] http://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/Public-User-Survey-Report.pdf > > (page 20) > > [2] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tag/?h=icehouse-eol > > > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, > proprietary and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it > immediately. > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-operators mailing list > > openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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