Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi René,


I've update the LTS wiki to reflect that 4.9(.x) will be supported until 1 July 
2018, and 4.11 (next LTS) will be released in Jan 2018 (tentatively) supported 
until 1 July 2019:


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS


In our next release, we'll also update the website creating a new section of 
LTS and non-LTS release, with link to above wiki and the supported date(s).


Regards.



From: Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:35:06 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hi Paul

On 11/27/2017 06:27 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
> Hi Rene,
>
> note: I'm only stating what the original intent was when LTS was originally 
> proposed.  I'm not trying to dictate what we must do now or in the future.
>
> ... The LTS scheme was designed when there was a release coming out every one 
> or two months, and these releases were effectively only receiving fixes for a 
> month or two.
>
> To answer your questions (taking into account the note above)- 4.9 was an LTS 
> version, which meant that there would be a 4.9.1, 4.9.2..4.9.6... for a 
> period of 2 years.
> 4.9.x was the latest 'version' at the beginning of 2017.
> Unfortunately, it was also the latest version in the middle of 2017. So in 
> mid-2017 we took the latest version (4.9 again) and said that we would 
> continue backporting fix for that version for 2 years from mid 2017.

This is absolutely fine, we are on the same page.

> Some variant of your proposal "6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 
> months)." would also work.
> I think something like "supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS 
> release or a total period of 24 months, whichever is greater" suits what you 
> are saying?

That would definitely make things more clear to users.

Regards
René

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Paul Angus]

I'm pleased that we got there.   I'll update the wiki accordingly



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net] 
Sent: 27 November 2017 18:05
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hi Paul

On 11/27/2017 06:27 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
> Hi Rene,
> 
> note: I'm only stating what the original intent was when LTS was originally 
> proposed.  I'm not trying to dictate what we must do now or in the future.
> 
> ... The LTS scheme was designed when there was a release coming out every one 
> or two months, and these releases were effectively only receiving fixes for a 
> month or two.
> 
> To answer your questions (taking into account the note above)- 4.9 was an LTS 
> version, which meant that there would be a 4.9.1, 4.9.2..4.9.6... for a 
> period of 2 years.
> 4.9.x was the latest 'version' at the beginning of 2017.
> Unfortunately, it was also the latest version in the middle of 2017. So in 
> mid-2017 we took the latest version (4.9 again) and said that we would 
> continue backporting fix for that version for 2 years from mid 2017.

This is absolutely fine, we are on the same page.

> Some variant of your proposal "6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 
> months)." would also work.
> I think something like "supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS 
> release or a total period of 24 months, whichever is greater" suits what you 
> are saying?

That would definitely make things more clear to users.

Regards
René

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Ron Wheeler]

"supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS release or a total period of 24 
months, whichever is greater"

Do you mean:

"supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS release or minimum of 24 months 
after initial release, whichever is greater"

The web site should be updated to reflect the current policy and kept up 
to date as the policy changes.
New users do not have the benefit of all of this discussion so they go 
by what the web site says and make their judgments about stability and 
support based on what it says.


It will be unusual for users to object to an extension of LTS if the 
initial commitment needs altering.



Ron

On 27/11/2017 12:27 PM, Paul Angus wrote:

Hi Rene,

note: I'm only stating what the original intent was when LTS was originally 
proposed.  I'm not trying to dictate what we must do now or in the future.

... The LTS scheme was designed when there was a release coming out every one 
or two months, and these releases were effectively only receiving fixes for a 
month or two.

To answer your questions (taking into account the note above)- 4.9 was an LTS 
version, which meant that there would be a 4.9.1, 4.9.2..4.9.6... for a 
period of 2 years.
4.9.x was the latest 'version' at the beginning of 2017.
Unfortunately, it was also the latest version in the middle of 2017. So in 
mid-2017 we took the latest version (4.9 again) and said that we would continue 
backporting fix for that version for 2 years from mid 2017.

Some variant of your proposal "6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 
months)." would also work.
I think something like "supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS release 
or a total period of 24 months, whichever is greater" suits what you are saying?


Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
   
  



-Original Message-
From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net]
Sent: 27 November 2017 09:52
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hi Paul

On 11/22/2017 05:39 PM, Paul Angus wrote:

HI All,

The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at the 
time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).

So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current version 
of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we would then 
backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years.  Thereby giving end users a 
version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an extended period.

This year however, the current version in January was the same as the
current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well
as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019
(hence the 4.9.3 release)

I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support 'LTS' 
releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to 'announce' in 
July), which may be why people think that nothing is happening.

With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would only be 
12 months from release.  Which I think is really too short a period for the 
majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this way, the current 
scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.

So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks like it 
needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)

Does the release of an LTS include minor releases, is a release of 4.9.x an "LTS" 
release? Or is a 4.x an LTS release. My understanding was, that 4.x are new "releases".

My concerns are, we can not guarantee 2 LTS releases per year, can we?

Predicting the future is hard and we should have a more "relative"
sentence how long we support it.

In my opition, there should be an overlapping of support time for at east 6 
monnths (that is why I added +6 months).

What would it cost to change the support time of an LTS like:

"6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 months)."

Regards
René



--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Rene Moser]

Hi Paul

On 11/27/2017 06:27 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
> Hi Rene,
> 
> note: I'm only stating what the original intent was when LTS was originally 
> proposed.  I'm not trying to dictate what we must do now or in the future.
> 
> ... The LTS scheme was designed when there was a release coming out every one 
> or two months, and these releases were effectively only receiving fixes for a 
> month or two.
> 
> To answer your questions (taking into account the note above)- 4.9 was an LTS 
> version, which meant that there would be a 4.9.1, 4.9.2..4.9.6... for a 
> period of 2 years.
> 4.9.x was the latest 'version' at the beginning of 2017.
> Unfortunately, it was also the latest version in the middle of 2017. So in 
> mid-2017 we took the latest version (4.9 again) and said that we would 
> continue backporting fix for that version for 2 years from mid 2017.

This is absolutely fine, we are on the same page.

> Some variant of your proposal "6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 
> months)." would also work.
> I think something like "supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS 
> release or a total period of 24 months, whichever is greater" suits what you 
> are saying?

That would definitely make things more clear to users.

Regards
René

RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Paul Angus]

Hi Rene,

note: I'm only stating what the original intent was when LTS was originally 
proposed.  I'm not trying to dictate what we must do now or in the future.

... The LTS scheme was designed when there was a release coming out every one 
or two months, and these releases were effectively only receiving fixes for a 
month or two.

To answer your questions (taking into account the note above)- 4.9 was an LTS 
version, which meant that there would be a 4.9.1, 4.9.2..4.9.6... for a 
period of 2 years.
4.9.x was the latest 'version' at the beginning of 2017.
Unfortunately, it was also the latest version in the middle of 2017. So in 
mid-2017 we took the latest version (4.9 again) and said that we would continue 
backporting fix for that version for 2 years from mid 2017.

Some variant of your proposal "6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 
months)." would also work.
I think something like "supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS 
release or a total period of 24 months, whichever is greater" suits what you 
are saying?


Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net] 
Sent: 27 November 2017 09:52
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hi Paul

On 11/22/2017 05:39 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
> HI All,
> 
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at the 
> time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
> 
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current 
> version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we 
> would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years.  Thereby giving end 
> users a version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an extended 
> period.  
> 
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the 
> current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well 
> as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 
> (hence the 4.9.3 release)
> 
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support 'LTS' 
> releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to 'announce' in 
> July), which may be why people think that nothing is happening.
> 
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would only 
> be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too short a period for 
> the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this way, the 
> current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
> 
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks like 
> it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that) 

Does the release of an LTS include minor releases, is a release of 4.9.x an 
"LTS" release? Or is a 4.x an LTS release. My understanding was, that 4.x are 
new "releases".

My concerns are, we can not guarantee 2 LTS releases per year, can we?

Predicting the future is hard and we should have a more "relative"
sentence how long we support it.

In my opition, there should be an overlapping of support time for at east 6 
monnths (that is why I added +6 months).

What would it cost to change the support time of an LTS like:

"6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 months)."

Regards
René

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Rene Moser]

Hi Paul

On 11/22/2017 05:39 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
> HI All, 
> 
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at the 
> time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
> 
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current 
> version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we 
> would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years.  Thereby giving end 
> users a version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an extended 
> period.  
> 
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the current 
> version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well as January LTS 
> and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 (hence the 4.9.3 
> release)
> 
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support 'LTS' 
> releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to 'announce' in 
> July), which may be why people think that nothing is happening.
> 
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would only 
> be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too short a period for 
> the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this way, the 
> current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
> 
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks like 
> it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that) 

Does the release of an LTS include minor releases, is a release of 4.9.x
an "LTS" release? Or is a 4.x an LTS release. My understanding was, that
4.x are new "releases".

My concerns are, we can not guarantee 2 LTS releases per year, can we?

Predicting the future is hard and we should have a more "relative"
sentence how long we support it.

In my opition, there should be an overlapping of support time for at
east 6 monnths (that is why I added +6 months).

What would it cost to change the support time of an LTS like:

"6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 months)."

Regards
René

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Ivan Kudryavtsev]

Ok, guys, you know how to organize it better, I'm not full featured
developer, so just do my best.

23 нояб. 2017 г. 4:20 ПП пользователь "Daan Hoogland" <
daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> написал:

> Ivan, don't do two sets of fixes. We will forwarfd merge from the 4.10
> branch to master
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev <
> kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi, Paul.
> >
> > All my fixes to 4.10 are in pr:
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2320
> >
> > I think it should be organized somehow with PR per bug, just don't have
> > enough time to do it with 4.10, but I sent all PRs for bugs found
> > separately to master with jira tickets and all-in-one PR to 4.10.
> >
> > 23 нояб. 2017 г. 4:06 ПП пользователь "Paul Angus" <
> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
> > написал:
> >
> > > I'll add 'update the downloads page' to the wiki update...
> > >
> > > But for the rest of Ivan's issues, sounds like we need a 4.10.1 as well
> > as
> > > a 4.11
> > >
> > > Are there fixes in the master branch for the issues that you are seeing
> > > Ivan (and are there bugs logged in Jira as blockers if not?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Paul Angus
> > >
> > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> > > www.shapeblue.com
> > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> > > @shapeblue
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com]
> > > Sent: 23 November 2017 09:01
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
> > >
> > > I agree Ivan
> > > http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html makes no mention of LTS
> and
> > > provides no guidance on benefits of different versions
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Giles
> > >
> > > giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
> > > www.shapeblue.com
> > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> > > Sent: 23 November 2017 01:45
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
> > >
> > > Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
> > > According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website
> > > content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should
> > clearly
> > > state:
> > >
> > > Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous
> LTS
> > > 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y
> > >
> > > Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y
> > >
> > > The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't
> need
> > > new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs
> > > features.
> > >
> > > E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found
> > > windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We
> rolled
> > > back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and
> > > realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in
> production
> > > and happy.
> > >
> > > Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions
> > > and unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even
> > > templates created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is
> > > critical/blocker bug.
> > > The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is
> > reloaded
> > > all users lost tons of templates.
> > >
> > > 22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <
> > > wstev...@cloudops.com>
> > > написал:
> > >
> > > Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
> > > Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P
> > >
> > > *Will Stevens*
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > HI All,
> > > >
> > > > The current LTS c

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Daan Hoogland]

Ivan, don't do two sets of fixes. We will forwarfd merge from the 4.10
branch to master

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com
> wrote:

> Hi, Paul.
>
> All my fixes to 4.10 are in pr:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2320
>
> I think it should be organized somehow with PR per bug, just don't have
> enough time to do it with 4.10, but I sent all PRs for bugs found
> separately to master with jira tickets and all-in-one PR to 4.10.
>
> 23 нояб. 2017 г. 4:06 ПП пользователь "Paul Angus" <
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
> написал:
>
> > I'll add 'update the downloads page' to the wiki update...
> >
> > But for the rest of Ivan's issues, sounds like we need a 4.10.1 as well
> as
> > a 4.11
> >
> > Are there fixes in the master branch for the issues that you are seeing
> > Ivan (and are there bugs logged in Jira as blockers if not?)
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Paul Angus
> >
> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com]
> > Sent: 23 November 2017 09:01
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
> >
> > I agree Ivan
> > http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html makes no mention of LTS and
> > provides no guidance on benefits of different versions
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Giles
> >
> > giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> > Sent: 23 November 2017 01:45
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
> >
> > Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
> > According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website
> > content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should
> clearly
> > state:
> >
> > Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous LTS
> > 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y
> >
> > Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y
> >
> > The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need
> > new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs
> > features.
> >
> > E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found
> > windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled
> > back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and
> > realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production
> > and happy.
> >
> > Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions
> > and unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even
> > templates created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is
> > critical/blocker bug.
> > The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is
> reloaded
> > all users lost tons of templates.
> >
> > 22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <
> > wstev...@cloudops.com>
> > написал:
> >
> > Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
> > Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P
> >
> > *Will Stevens*
> > CTO
> >
> > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > HI All,
> > >
> > > The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year
> > > (at the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
> > >
> > > So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then
> > > current version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for
> > > which would we would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2
> > > years.  Thereby giving end users a version of CloudStack which would
> > > receive bug fixes for an extended period.
> > >
> > > This year however, the current version in January was the same as the
> > > current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well
> > > as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019
> > > (hen

RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Ivan Kudryavtsev]

Hi, Paul.

All my fixes to 4.10 are in pr:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2320

I think it should be organized somehow with PR per bug, just don't have
enough time to do it with 4.10, but I sent all PRs for bugs found
separately to master with jira tickets and all-in-one PR to 4.10.

23 нояб. 2017 г. 4:06 ПП пользователь "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
написал:

> I'll add 'update the downloads page' to the wiki update...
>
> But for the rest of Ivan's issues, sounds like we need a 4.10.1 as well as
> a 4.11
>
> Are there fixes in the master branch for the issues that you are seeing
> Ivan (and are there bugs logged in Jira as blockers if not?)
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: 23 November 2017 09:01
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> I agree Ivan
> http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html makes no mention of LTS and
> provides no guidance on benefits of different versions
>
> Kind regards
> Giles
>
> giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> Sent: 23 November 2017 01:45
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
> According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website
> content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly
> state:
>
> Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous LTS
> 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y
>
> Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y
>
> The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need
> new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs
> features.
>
> E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found
> windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled
> back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and
> realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production
> and happy.
>
> Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions
> and unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even
> templates created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is
> critical/blocker bug.
> The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded
> all users lost tons of templates.
>
> 22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <
> wstev...@cloudops.com>
> написал:
>
> Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
> Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P
>
> *Will Stevens*
> CTO
>
> <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
>
> > HI All,
> >
> > The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year
> > (at the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
> >
> > So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then
> > current version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for
> > which would we would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2
> > years.  Thereby giving end users a version of CloudStack which would
> > receive bug fixes for an extended period.
> >
> > This year however, the current version in January was the same as the
> > current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well
> > as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019
> > (hence the 4.9.3 release)
> >
> > I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to
> > support 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything
> > really to 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that
> > nothing is happening.
> >
> > With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months'
> > would only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too
> > short a
> period
> > for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this
> > way, the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
> >
> > So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
> > like it needs updating to be cleare

RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Paul Angus]

I'll add 'update the downloads page' to the wiki update...

But for the rest of Ivan's issues, sounds like we need a 4.10.1 as well as a 
4.11

Are there fixes in the master branch for the issues that you are seeing Ivan 
(and are there bugs logged in Jira as blockers if not?)


Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com] 
Sent: 23 November 2017 09:01
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

I agree Ivan
http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html makes no mention of LTS and 
provides no guidance on benefits of different versions

Kind regards
Giles

giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
Sent: 23 November 2017 01:45
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website content is 
lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly
state:

Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous LTS 4.X | 
updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y

Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y

The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need new, 
they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs features.

E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found windows 
8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled back. I mean 
that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and realize what options 
they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production and happy.

Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions and 
unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even templates 
created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is critical/blocker bug.
The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded all 
users lost tons of templates.

22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com>
написал:

Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P

*Will Stevens*
CTO

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> HI All,
>
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year 
> (at the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
>
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then 
> current version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for 
> which would we would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 
> years.  Thereby giving end users a version of CloudStack which would 
> receive bug fixes for an extended period.
>
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the 
> current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well 
> as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 
> (hence the 4.9.3 release)
>
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to 
> support 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything 
> really to 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that 
> nothing is happening.
>
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' 
> would only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too 
> short a
period
> for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this 
> way, the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
>
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
> like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)
>
>
> But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM
> volunteer to get things going.   (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big
> mouth in that position).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the 
> better for adopters.
>
> 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - 
> Exoscale" < ma...@exoscale.ch> написал:
>
> > It makes more sense to me too.
> >
> >
> > On

RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Giles Sirett]

I agree Ivan
http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html makes no mention of LTS and 
provides no guidance on benefits of different versions

Kind regards
Giles

giles.sir...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com] 
Sent: 23 November 2017 01:45
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website content is 
lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly
state:

Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous LTS 4.X | 
updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y

Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y

The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need new, 
they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs features.

E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found windows 
8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled back. I mean 
that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and realize what options 
they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production and happy.

Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions and 
unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even templates 
created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is critical/blocker bug.
The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded all 
users lost tons of templates.

22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com>
написал:

Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P

*Will Stevens*
CTO

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> HI All,
>
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year 
> (at the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
>
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then 
> current version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for 
> which would we would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 
> years.  Thereby giving end users a version of CloudStack which would 
> receive bug fixes for an extended period.
>
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the 
> current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well 
> as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 
> (hence the 4.9.3 release)
>
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to 
> support 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything 
> really to 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that 
> nothing is happening.
>
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' 
> would only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too 
> short a
period
> for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this 
> way, the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
>
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
> like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)
>
>
> But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM
> volunteer to get things going.   (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big
> mouth in that position).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the
> better for adopters.
>
> 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" <
> ma...@exoscale.ch> написал:
>
> > It makes more sense to me too.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according
> > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
> > >
> > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> > > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the
> > > reason for the LTS).
> > >
> > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL
> > > in relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the
> > > current LTS is +6 months after the next LTS release."
> > >
> > > Small example:
> > >
> > > Current LTS 4.9
> > > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
> > >
> > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > René
> >
>

RE: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Paul Angus]


In that case I may be over-qualified !



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Will Stevens
Sent: 22 November 2017 16:49
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P

*Will Stevens*
CTO

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> HI All,
>
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year 
> (at the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
>
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then 
> current version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for 
> which would we would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 
> years.  Thereby giving end users a version of CloudStack which would 
> receive bug fixes for an extended period.
>
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the 
> current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well 
> as January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 
> (hence the 4.9.3 release)
>
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to 
> support 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything 
> really to 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that 
> nothing is happening.
>
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' 
> would only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too 
> short a period for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't 
> written it this way, the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
>
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
> like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)
>
>
> But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM
> volunteer to get things going.   (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big
> mouth in that position).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the
> better for adopters.
>
> 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" <
> ma...@exoscale.ch> написал:
>
> > It makes more sense to me too.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according
> > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
> > >
> > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> > > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the
> > > reason for the LTS).
> > >
> > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL
> > > in relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the
> > > current LTS is +6 months after the next LTS release."
> > >
> > > Small example:
> > >
> > > Current LTS 4.9
> > > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
> > >
> > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > René
> >
>

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Ron Wheeler]

I am not sure that the world would end if the EOL was extended for a 
particularly popular LTS release if the subsequent releases were not as 
stable as some people liked or did not include sufficient new features 
to motivate a lot of happy users to upgrade.
If the pace of enhancements is slow and there are a small number of bug 
fixes requiring backporting, this could be manageable.


At the moment, would it be reasonable for a new installation to start 
with the latest 4.9.x if the EOL was 2020 and the EOL of 4.10.x was 2021?
Perhaps for many people the risk of starting with .1 release of 4.10 
today rather than a .3 release of 4.9 would outweigh the benefit of the 
extra year of support. That analysis would gradually change as 4.10 gets 
additional minor releases and 2020 gets closer.


One would hope that the number of critical enhancements and bug fixes 
will reduce as the product becomes more mature.


In addition, as the functionality required by an increasing percentage 
of users is incorporated into the product, the attractiveness of a new 
release will be reduced.  Users will want LTS to be extended for longer 
periods since upgrading does not buy them very much and possibly nothing 
at all in their particular use case as long as bugs are fixed.


This should be viewed as a sign of successful design and strong 
implementation rather than a loss of momentum.


Ron

On 22/11/2017 8:44 PM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:

Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website
content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly
state:

Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y
Previous LTS 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y

Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y

The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need
new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs
features.

E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found
windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled
back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and
realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production
and happy.

Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions and
unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even templates
created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is critical/blocker bug.
The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded
all users lost tons of templates.

22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com>
написал:

Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P

*Will Stevens*
CTO

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:


HI All,

The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at
the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).

So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current
version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we
would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years.  Thereby giving
end users a version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an
extended period.

This year however, the current version in January was the same as the
current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well as
January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 (hence
the 4.9.3 release)

I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support
'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to
'announce' in July), which may be why people think that nothing is
happening.

With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would
only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too short a

period

for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this way,
the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.

So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)


But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM
volunteer to get things going.   (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big
mouth in that position).


Kind regards,

Paul Angus


paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue




-Original Message-
From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the
better for adopters.

21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" <
ma...@exoscale.ch&

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Ivan Kudryavtsev]

Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here.
According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website
content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly
state:

Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y
Previous LTS 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y

Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y

The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need
new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs
features.

E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found
windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled
back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and
realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production
and happy.

Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions and
unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even templates
created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is critical/blocker bug.
The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded
all users lost tons of templates.

22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com>
написал:

Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P

*Will Stevens*
CTO

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> HI All,
>
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at
> the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
>
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current
> version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we
> would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years.  Thereby giving
> end users a version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an
> extended period.
>
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the
> current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well as
> January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 (hence
> the 4.9.3 release)
>
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support
> 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to
> 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that nothing is
> happening.
>
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would
> only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too short a
period
> for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this way,
> the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
>
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
> like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)
>
>
> But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM
> volunteer to get things going.   (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big
> mouth in that position).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the
> better for adopters.
>
> 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" <
> ma...@exoscale.ch> написал:
>
> > It makes more sense to me too.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according
> > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
> > >
> > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> > > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the
> > > reason for the LTS).
> > >
> > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL
> > > in relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the
> > > current LTS is +6 months after the next LTS release."
> > >
> > > Small example:
> > >
> > > Current LTS 4.9
> > > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
> > >
> > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > René
> >
>

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Will Stevens]

Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position.
Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM?  :P

*Will Stevens*
CTO

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> HI All,
>
> The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at
> the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly).
>
> So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current
> version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we
> would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years.  Thereby giving
> end users a version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an
> extended period.
>
> This year however, the current version in January was the same as the
> current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well as
> January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 (hence
> the 4.9.3 release)
>
> I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support
> 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to
> 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that nothing is
> happening.
>
> With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would
> only be 12 months from release.  Which I think is really too short a period
> for the majority of enterprises.  Although we haven't written it this way,
> the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'.
>
> So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are.   The wiki page looks
> like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that)
>
>
> But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM
> volunteer to get things going.   (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big
> mouth in that position).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?
>
> Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the
> better for adopters.
>
> 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" <
> ma...@exoscale.ch> написал:
>
> > It makes more sense to me too.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according
> > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
> > >
> > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> > > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the
> > > reason for the LTS).
> > >
> > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL
> > > in relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the
> > > current LTS is +6 months after the next LTS release."
> > >
> > > Small example:
> > >
> > > Current LTS 4.9
> > > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
> > >
> > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > René
> >
>

Re:Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Haijiao]

Agree.  And I suppose 4.11 will be the next LTS ? 


I think community has lots of good initiatives in past years,  but most 
important is to 'insist' and make it happen.  LTS concept is one of good 
references. 


Regards,


在2017年11月22 14时13分, "Milamber"写道:


Sound good for me too

On 21/11/2017 11:04, Rene Moser wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according to
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
>
> AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the reason
> for the LTS).
>
> I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL in
> relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the current LTS
> is +6 months after the next LTS release."
>
> Small example:
>
> Current LTS 4.9
> Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
>
> Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
>
> Regards
> René
> .
>

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Milamber]

Sound good for me too

On 21/11/2017 11:04, Rene Moser wrote:

Hi all

The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS

AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the reason
for the LTS).

I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL in
relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the current LTS
is +6 months after the next LTS release."

Small example:

Current LTS 4.9
Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.

Does this make sense? Other suggestions?

Regards
René
.

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Ivan Kudryavtsev]

Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the better
for adopters.

21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" <
ma...@exoscale.ch> написал:

> It makes more sense to me too.
>
>
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according to
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
> >
> > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the
> > reason
> > for the LTS).
> >
> > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL
> > in
> > relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the current
> > LTS
> > is +6 months after the next LTS release."
> >
> > Small example:
> >
> > Current LTS 4.9
> > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
> >
> > Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
> >
> > Regards
> > René
>

Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale]

It makes more sense to me too.


On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according to
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS
> 
> AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
> slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the
> reason
> for the LTS).
> 
> I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL
> in
> relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the current
> LTS
> is +6 months after the next LTS release."
> 
> Small example:
> 
> Current LTS 4.9
> Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.
> 
> Does this make sense? Other suggestions?
> 
> Regards
> René

CloudStack LTS EOL date?

[Rene Moser]

Hi all

The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS

AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has
slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the reason
for the LTS).

I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL in
relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the current LTS
is +6 months after the next LTS release."

Small example:

Current LTS 4.9
Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10.

Does this make sense? Other suggestions?

Regards
René