I am happy with this branch of the thread!
I'm guessing this would start post-Mimic though, if no one objects and
if we want to target a March release?
-Joao
On 09/23/2017 02:58 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Gregory Farnum wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Sage Weil wro
I'll be first to admit that most of my comments are anecdotal. But, I
suspect when it comes to storage many of us don't require a lot to get
scared back into our dark corners. In short it seems that the dev team
should get better at selecting features and delivering on the existing
scheduled cadenc
On 23 September 2017 at 11:58, Sage Weil wrote:
> I'm *much* happier with 2 :) so no complaint from me. I just heard a lot
> of "2 years" and 2 releases (18 months) doesn't quite cover it. Maybe
> it's best to start with that, though? It's still an improvement over the
> current ~12 months.
FW
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Here is a concrete proposal for everyone to summarily shoot down (or
> > heartily endorse, depending on how your friday is going):
> >
> > - 9 month cycle
> > - enforce a predictable release schedule
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Here is a concrete proposal for everyone to summarily shoot down (or
> heartily endorse, depending on how your friday is going):
>
> - 9 month cycle
> - enforce a predictable release schedule with a freeze date and
> a release date. (The actua
Here is a concrete proposal for everyone to summarily shoot down (or
heartily endorse, depending on how your friday is going):
- 9 month cycle
- enforce a predictable release schedule with a freeze date and
a release date. (The actual .0 release of course depends on no blocker
bugs being o
(Apologies if this is a double post - I think my phone turned it into
HTML and so bounced from ceph-devel)...
We currently use both upstream and distro (RHCS) versions on different
clusters. Downstream releases are still free to apply their own
models.
I like the idea of a predictable (and more r
On 7 September 2017 at 01:23, Sage Weil wrote:
> * Drop the odd releases, and aim for a ~9 month cadence. This splits the
> difference between the current even/odd pattern we've been doing.
>
> + eliminate the confusing odd releases with dubious value
> + waiting for the next release isn't quite a
We have generally been running the latest non LTS 'stable' release since my
cluster is slightly less mission critical than others, and there were
important features to us added in both Infernalis and Kraken. But i really
only care about RGW. If the rgw component could be split out of ceph into a
pl
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year,
> and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes
> backported for 1-2 years.
>
> With kraken and luminous we missed our schedule by a lot
From a backporter's perspective, the appealing options are the ones
that reduce the number of stable releases in maintenance at any
particular time.
In the current practice, there are always at least two LTS releases, and
sometimes a non-LTS release as well, that are "live" and supposed to be
As a user, I woul like to add, I would like to see a real 2 year support for
LTS releases. Hammer releases were sketchy at best in 2017. When luminous was
released The outstanding bugs were auto closed, good buy and good readance.
Also the decision to drop certain OS support created a bar
As a user, I woul like to add, I would like to see a real 2 year support
for LTS releases. Hammer releases were sketchy at best in 2017. When
luminous was released The outstanding bugs were auto closed, good buy and
good readance.
Also the decision to drop certain OS support created a barrier
As a user, I woul like to add, I would like to see a real 2 year support
for LTS releases. Hammer releases were sketchy at best in 2017. When
luminous was released The outstanding bugs were auto closed, good buy and
good readance.
Also the decision to drop certain OS support created a barrier
Hi,
have been using Ceph for multiple years now. It’s unclear to me which of your
options fits best, but here are my preferences:
* Updates are risky in a way that we tend to rather not do them every year.
Also, having seen jewel, we’ve been well off to avoid two
major issues what would have
Personally I kind of like the current format and fundamentally we are
talking about Data storage which should be the most tested and scrutinized
piece of software on your computer. Having XYZ feature later than sooner
compared to oh I lost all my data. I am thinking of a recent FS that had a
featur
Hi,
On 06/09/17 16:23, Sage Weil wrote:
> Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year,
> and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes
> backported for 1-2 years.
We use the ceph version that comes with our distribution (Ubuntu LTS);
those come
r 06, 2017 8:24 AM
> To: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-maintain...@ceph.com;
> ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: [ceph-users] Ceph release cadence
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year, and
> every other
On 17-09-06 18:23, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi everyone,
Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year,
and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes
backported for 1-2 years.
With kraken and luminous we missed our schedule by a lot: instead of
releasing i
> * Drop the odd releases, and aim for a ~9 month cadence. This splits the
> difference between the current even/odd pattern we've been doing.
>
> + eliminate the confusing odd releases with dubious value
> + waiting for the next release isn't quite as bad
> - required upgrades every 9 months
process.
--
Deepak
-Original Message-
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Sage
Weil
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 8:24 AM
To: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-maintain...@ceph.com; ceph-us...@ceph.com
Subject: [ceph-users] Ceph release cadence
Hi ever
com] On Behalf Of Sage
Weil
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 8:24 AM
To: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-maintain...@ceph.com; ceph-us...@ceph.com
Subject: [ceph-users] Ceph release cadence
Hi everyone,
Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year, and
ev
I have been working with Ceph for the last several years and I help
support multiple Ceph clusters. I would like to have the team drop the
Even/Odd release schedule, and go to an all production release
schedule. I would like releases on no more then a 9 month schedule,
with smaller incremental cha
On 09/06/2017 04:23 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
* Keep even/odd pattern, but force a 'train' model with a more regular
cadence
+ predictable schedule
- some features will miss the target and be delayed a year
Personally, I think a predictable schedule is the way to go. Two major
reasons come t
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> * Keep even/odd pattern, but force a 'train' model with a more regular
> cadence
>
> + predictable schedule
> - some features will miss the target and be delayed a year
This one (#2, regular release cadence) is the one I will value the most.
Hi Sage,
The one option I do not want for Ceph is the last one: support upgrade
across multiple LTS versions
I'd rather wait 3 months for a better release (both in terms of
functions and quality) than seeing the Ceph team exhausted, having to
maintain for years a lot more releases and code
Othe
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:23 AM Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year,
> and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes
> backported for 1-2 years.
>
> With kraken and luminous we missed our schedule by a lo
On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 15:23 +, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year,
> and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes
> backported for 1-2 years.
>
> With kraken and luminous we missed our schedule by
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Sage
Weil
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 10:24 AM
To: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-maintain...@ceph.com; ceph-us...@ceph.com
Subject: [ceph-users] Ceph release cadence
Note:
Hi everyone,
Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year,
and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes
backported for 1-2 years.
With kraken and luminous we missed our schedule by a lot: instead of
releasing in October and April we released in
30 matches
Mail list logo
