>On 15 November 2014 07:57, Kris G. Lindgren <[email protected]> wrote: >> I personally am hoping for a clear definition of what "stable" actually >> means. > >Congruence on that is critical.
Agreed. > >> I know we (Godaddy) try to stay on stable releases and not >> run on trunk, I assume a majority of other operators do as well. > >Some large public cloud operators run production on trunk. The >dissonance between this approach and what is the traditional >enterprise behaviour of using a stable branch is a significant. If we >assume that the large operators are getting the best stability >results, then should enterprises be investing in CI/CD and all that it >entails? We carry patches sets on top of stable releases that solve enterprise specific asks that are most likely not relevant to the rest of the community. Running on trunk carrying those patch sets would require many many man hours that we don¹t have. It also requires one to be pretty well plugged into each of the major projects that you care about so you can be made aware of changes that are coming - instead of always dealing with CI/CD build failures. As an operator, neither are things that I have any particular need/want to do. That way we (typically) only have to worry about re-baseing our patch sets when we go from stable -> new stable release - icehouse -> juno. > >Roland Kris _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
