BTW, what's the EOL date of Juno? On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Tom Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On a personal level, supporting the same release of an open source project > for 5 years is something you should pay for...dearly. If operators have > customers that are pinned to Juno for some reason I couldn't imagine right > now, and they're willing to pay us to support it, then great! > > > But I think we need to very tightly scope what support means- Absolutely > no back or forward porting. The features you have now are frozen in time. > Also, they need to be tightly pinned to the OS distro repo versions of > packages so we don't have to care about fixing critical vulns in stuff we > don't maintain and can't control. This basically means they'll be paying us > to make sure they can upgrade distro packages for security reasons and that > OpenStack will keep functioning, and to file & patch upstream OpenStack > bugs. > > > Effectively this means they're settling for less value for their money if > they remain on Juno for the full 5 years, whereas customers using newer > versions of operators' OpenStack offerings will be getting new development > and features for the same support dollars (which is a good way to market > new versions to them, BTW). > > > My $0.02 > > > > -- > Tom Cameron > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > -- Gareth *Cloud Computing, OpenStack, Distributed Storage, Fitness, Basketball* *OpenStack contributor, kun_huang@freenode* *My promise: if you find any spelling or grammar mistakes in my email from Mar 1 2013, notify me * *and I'll donate $1 or ￥1 to an open organization you specify.*
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
