On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 02:53:53PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:23:37AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:48:07AM +0000, Stokes, Ian wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2018 10:46 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > > I've had a number of queries from folks lately about our roadmap for > > > > > LTS releases. It has, indeed, been a long time since we've had a > > > > > long-term support release (the current LTS is 2.5). Usually, we've > > > > > done LTS releases before some kind of big architectural change, etc., > > > > > and so we've had no real internal pressure within the project to do it > > > > > for a while. But it might be a good signal to the community to bring > > > > > the LTS release forward. > > > > > > > > > > What does everyone think about making the next (2.11) release an LTS? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. The current LTS is quite old now, especially > > > > for > > > > the DPDK datapath. There is a new DPDK LTS coming out in November which > > > > should be in for OVS 2.11, so it would be a nice combination for a user > > > > to > > > > have LTS support for both. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > With regards backporting support for LTS releases, I take it LTS takes > > > priority over non LTS branches, that would be the only difference I would > > > think? > > > > Yes, basically we should try harder to backport to LTS branches. > > > > > In fairness I think the community is pretty good as is for backporting > > > bug fixes for all branches. > > > > We do a pretty good job of it most of the time. The main driver for LTS > > releases has been big OVS internal changes that are likely to break > > things. By doing an LTS release just before a version with those kinds > > of changes, we gave our users something to confidently fall back on if > > the next release was a little more unstable--not that we ever aim for > > that, but it happens sometimes. We haven't had that kind of big change > > recently, so we haven't had a natural impetus to release an LTS--and for > > the same reason, it's been easy to backport most fixes because there > > haven't been sweeping changes across the tree. > > What comes to mind is if OVN manages to split up from OVS soon. > Wouldn't be easier if OVN, as a separated project, requires > an OVS LTS version? If so, then 2.11 might not be the best one.
That's a good point. It would be reasonable to designate the first version required by the split OVN as LTS. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
