Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

es as a product of extensive contributions from the > development community and is a LTS release, guaranteeing ongoing > maintenance and support for a period of 18 months > > The 4.19 release contains 314 new features, improvements and bug fixes > since 4.18, 26 of these being major feature

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

Great work Abhishek and all community members!! -Jithin From: Abhishek Kumar Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 5:07 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache CloudStack Project Announces Apache

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

Congratulations everyone on the 4.19 release it has amazing features. Great work Abhishek Regards Kiran From: Abhishek Kumar Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 5:07 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release The Apache Software Foundation

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

Nice news, well done Abhishek and all! Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Nux Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 6:30:06 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Abhishek Kumar Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release Amazing, well done

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

is the most recent release of the cloud management platform. It comes as a product of extensive contributions from the development community and is a LTS release, guaranteeing ongoing maintenance and support for a period of 18 months The 4.19 release contains 314 new features, improvements and bug fixes

RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

That's great news - well done Abhishek and everybody involved Kind Regards Giles -Original Message- From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12:53 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release Congratulations everyone

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

Congratulations everyone! Great work Abhishek and everyone involved in the release work. Regards. From: Abhishek Kumar Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 17:06 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

platform. It comes as a product of extensive contributions from the > development community and is a LTS release, guaranteeing ongoing > maintenance and support for a period of 18 months > > The 4.19 release contains 314 new features, improvements and bug fixes > since 4.18, 26 of the

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.19.0.0 LTS Release

The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache CloudStack Project Announces Apache® CloudStack® v4.19. Apache CloudStack 4.19 is the most recent release of the cloud management platform. It comes as a product of extensive contributions from the development community and is a LTS release

[ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.2.0 LTS Release

# Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.17.2.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.17.2.0. The CloudStack 4.17.2.0 release is a maintenance release as part of its 4.17.x LTS branch and contains more than 20 fixes since the CloudStack 4.17.1.0

Re: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release

elease! > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > From: Giles Sirett > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 13:19 > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release &

Re: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release

Sirett > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 13:19 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release > > Well done Abhishek and all involved > > > > Kind Regards > Giles > > > > > > > > -Original

Re: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release

Thanks Abhishek and congratulations to the wider community for a new release! Regards. From: Giles Sirett Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 13:19 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release Well done Abhishek

RE: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release

Well done Abhishek and all involved Kind Regards Giles -Original Message- From: Abhishek Kumar Sent: 27 September 2022 08:37 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release # Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.17.1.0 The Apache

[ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.17.1.0 LTS Release

# Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.17.1.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.17.1.0. The CloudStack 4.17.1.0 release is a maintenance release as part of its 4.17.x LTS branch and contains more than 150 fixes and improvements since the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

gt; > > > > Thank you Suresh and all the 4.16.1.0 team, reviewers and contributors > > for > > > your hard work. > > > > > > Regards. > > > ____ > > > From: Katie F. > > > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

, 2022 9:57:31 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release > > > > Great news and thank you! > > > > Sent from my iPhone.Kathleen Foos > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

_ > From: Katie F. > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:57:31 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release > > Great news and thank you! > > Sent from my iPhone.Kathleen Foos > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2022,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

Congratulations all! Thank you Suresh and all the 4.16.1.0 team, reviewers and contributors for your hard work. Regards. From: Katie F. Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:57:31 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

Great news and thank you! Sent from my iPhone.Kathleen Foos > On Mar 7, 2022, at 9:37 AM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > > Great job Suresh, thanks ! > > -Wei > >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 15:31, Suresh Kumar Anaparti < >> sureshanapa...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> # Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

Thanks Suresh, great work! Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Suresh Kumar Anaparti Date: Monday, 7 March 2022 at 11:31 To: dev Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release # Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.16.1.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

Thanks, Suresh! --- Nux! www.nux.ro On 2022-03-07 14:31, Suresh Kumar Anaparti wrote: # Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.16.1.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.16.1.0. The CloudStack 4.16.1.0 release is a maintenance release as part

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

Great job Suresh, thanks ! -Wei On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 15:31, Suresh Kumar Anaparti < sureshanapa...@apache.org> wrote: > # Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.16.1.0 > > The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of > CloudStack 4.16.1.0. > The CloudStack 4.16.1.0

[ANNOUNCE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 LTS Release

# Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.16.1.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.16.1.0. The CloudStack 4.16.1.0 release is a maintenance release as part of its 4.16.x LTS branch and contains more than 150 fixes and improvements since the

[ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.15.2.0 LTS Release

# Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.15.2.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.15.2.0. The CloudStack 4.15.2.0 release is a maintenance release as part of its 4.15.x LTS branch and contains more than 75 fixes and improvements since the

[ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.15.1.0 LTS Release

# Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.15.1.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.15.1.0. The CloudStack 4.15.1.0 release is a maintenance release as part of its 4.15.x LTS branch and contains more than 350 fixes and improvements since the

[ANNOUCE] Apache CloudStack 4.14.1.0 LTS Release

# Apache CloudStack LTS Maintenance Release 4.14.1.0 The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of CloudStack 4.14.1.0 as part of its LTS 4.14.x releases. The CloudStack 4.14.1.0 release is a maintenance release and contains more than 100 fixes and improvements since the

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache CloudStack 4.12.0.0 non-LTS Release

The Apache CloudStack project is pleased to announce the release of the CloudStack 4.12.0.0. The CloudStack version 4.12.0.0 is a 4.12 non-LTS release, adding multiple features for those who want to access a fresh CloudStack prior to the next LTS. The release 4.12.0.0 combines 12 months of work

Re: [DISCUSS] Optional new SystemVM Template upgrade for 4.9 LTS release

. From: Boris Stoyanov <boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com> Sent: 21 December 2016 16:11:47 To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Optional new SystemVM Template upgrade for 4.9 LTS release Hi Franz, Thanks for bringing this up, I just had a talk with one of our eng

Re: [DISCUSS] Optional new SystemVM Template upgrade for 4.9 LTS release

Hi all, I’ve just completed upgrade tests to 4.9.1 including the new system-vm template. I’ve covered the following paths: 4.3 - 4.9.1 -XenServer 6.2 Advanced and Basic zone setup 4.5.2.2 - 4.9.1 -KVM Cenot OS 6.8 Advanced and Basic zone setup -KVM Cenot OS 7.2 Advanced and Basic zone setup

Re: [DISCUSS] Optional new SystemVM Template upgrade for 4.9 LTS release

> Op 9 december 2016 om 9:31 schreef Rohit Yadav : > > > All, > > > We've been using the same systemvm template since the 4.6.x releases, which > is more than a year old now. Since last one year, there have been several > packages updates especially security

[DISCUSS] Optional new SystemVM Template upgrade for 4.9 LTS release

All, We've been using the same systemvm template since the 4.6.x releases, which is more than a year old now. Since last one year, there have been several packages updates especially security updates published for Debian Wheezy 7 (which is what is our base for systemvmtemplate). In our

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

Rene, I apologize for lag in my reply — I have been a bit consumed by the $dayjob lately. At any given time, the two most recent LTS releases receive full support (back port of blocker/critical fixes + CVE patches). The oldest LTS release only receives CVE patches. Given the infrequency

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

ply with > corporate policy and/or regulatory requirements. To maintain a growing, > thriving community, we must address the needs of both user types. > Therefore, I propose that we overlay a LTS release cycle onto the > monthly release cycle to address the needs of stability-oriented users

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

. To maintain a growing, thriving community, we must address the needs of both user types. Therefore, I propose that we overlay a LTS release cycle onto the monthly release cycle to address the needs of stability-oriented users with minimal to no impact on the monthly release cycle. This proposed

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

peblue.com> > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 6:39 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle > > > Therefore, the process should stri

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

@cloudyangus<tel:@cloudyangus> > >e: paul.an...@shapeblue.com<mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com>| > w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > > > > > >-Original Message- >From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

Based on my long-time experience with maintaining and doing release work on 4.3 and later 4.5, there are many reasons where backporting is needed and forward merge won’t work; 1. Due to high codebase changes mostly due to major refactorings, it is not possible to simply cherry-pick a commit;

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

Rohit, I don't see any reasons beyond lack of discipline, ignorance, and laziness in your description. Not of an RM or other individual btw but of the community as a whole. In point 1 and 2 you are describing how cherry-pick and forward merge are actually the same amount of work. In the case of

RE: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] Sent: 20 January 2016 10:48 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle Hi Paul, I just hope you won’t reinvent the wheel ;-) Feel free to use what was build to test the 500+ PRs that got merged over the las

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

t;dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 January, 2016 07:45:57 > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > >> In terms of the merge strategy, nothing about the current pr

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

On a certain night when a release had been cut and there was some worry about a security fix not being included. The root cause was that we cherry-picked that fix and as a result its commit hash had changed. Hence we couldn’t find it. I’d recommend using forward merging instead of back porting

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

Maybe require all cherry-picks to use the -x option, which puts the original commit hash in the cherry-picked commit message? On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Remi Bergsma wrote: > On a certain night when a release had been cut and there was some worry > about a

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

Jeff, That we did before. I don't think that's good enough. It must be the same commit as far as I'm concerned. Any conflict will be made explicit in a merge commit that way. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Jeff Hair wrote: > Maybe require all cherry-picks to use the -x

RE: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

, January 19, 2016 6:39 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle > Therefore, the process should strive to make as a few releases as necessary to achieve this goal. I guess part two to this question would be - we need the automated testing environments.

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

ted number of releases LTS release due to QA pains. We need a separate initiative with CloudStack testing framework. On 1/18/16 6:54 PM, John Burwell wrote: > Ilya, > > Unless we have a bug fix that addresses a significant, widespread system > stability problem or a high priority/

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

believe that the tighter constraints on the defects that are allowed to be backported, a clearly defined policy about the LTS release cycle schedule, and monthly releases will allow us to avoid the mistakes of the past. Thanks, -John > [ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com> Joh

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

mploy QA processes to comply with corporate policy >>> and/or regulatory requirements. To maintain a growing, thriving >> community, >>> we must address the needs of both user types. Therefore, I propose that >> we >>> overlay a LTS release cycle onto the monthly

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

of users oriented towards stability rather than new >> functionality. These users typically employ QA processes to comply with >> corporate policy and/or regulatory requirements. To maintain a growing, >> thriving community, we must address the needs of both user types. >&g

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 AM, John Burwell wrote: > In terms of the merge strategy, nothing about the current process would > change. Defects would be fixed on the branch where they occurred and then > forward ported to master. For each maintained LTS branch less

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

sers typically employ QA processes to comply with corporate policy > > and/or regulatory requirements. To maintain a growing, thriving > community, > > we must address the needs of both user types. Therefore, I propose that > we > > overlay a LTS release cycle onto t

[PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

with corporate policy and/or regulatory requirements. To maintain a growing, thriving community, we must address the needs of both user types. Therefore, I propose that we overlay a LTS release cycle onto the monthly release cycle to address the needs of stability-oriented users with minimal

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

iving community, we must address the needs of both user types. > Therefore, I propose that we overlay a LTS release cycle onto the > monthly release cycle to address the needs of stability-oriented users > with minimal to no impact on the monthly release cycle. This proposed > LTS release

Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

f users oriented towards stability rather than new functionality. > These users typically employ QA processes to comply with corporate policy > and/or regulatory requirements. To maintain a growing, thriving community, > we must address the needs of both user types. Therefore, I propose that

Re: LTS release or not

the monthly release cycle with an LTS release cycle. We believe that offering both monthly and LTS releases will make CloudStack more attractive to new users, as well as, addressing the requirements of all current CloudStack users. I expect to publish an LTS proposal within the next day or so that includes

Re: LTS release or not

16 19:04:55 > Subject: Re: LTS release or not > Hi Lucian, > > Are you referring to the forward merging? > That has been scripted: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/tools/git/git-fwd-merge > > There may be conflicts at some point, but that also happens w

Re: LTS release or not

Depending on how far back the problem originated, this may not be practical. The code might have been massaged many times or code may have been written that depends on the buggy behaviour. If the bug "was always there" but no one had figured out the exploit, it might not be possible to

Re: LTS release or not

Hi, The method Daan describes can be done from 4.6 and on. It’s about merging a PR with a fix, and forward merging it. Not about actually releasing immediately. If the bug has always been there, one would merge to 4.6, merge forward to newer releases (and finally master) and then back port

Re: LTS release or not

time. > >Lucian > >-- >Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >Nux! >www.nux.ro > >- Original Message - >> From: "Remi Bergsma" <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Sent: Tuesday,

Re: LTS release or not

be interested in seeing the support of 4.5 longer as well, as > we are happy with what we got so far and dont have a burning need to > upgrade yet. > > Upgrade would also require serious testing across the board, so LTS > release can buy us more time. > &

Re: LTS release or not

Message - > From: "Remi Bergsma" <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, 12 January, 2016 15:36:52 > Subject: Re: LTS release or not > Hi, > > The method Daan describes can be done from 4.6 and on. It’s about merging a

Re: LTS release or not

There are good points for and against LTS. I do have specific use case that LTS solves, but in my opinion the scope of LTS would need to be revised. Why LTS is good idea? If you have environment with thousands of servers, upgrading from 4.5 to 4.7 and beyond would be rather risky. There are

Re: LTS release or not

ok, one last €0,01: any bug should be fixed not on the branch but on the commit it was introduced in and thenn be merged forward. It can then be merged into any branch that contains the offending commit and there is no longer any difference between LTS or anything else. Am I speaking Kardeshian? I

Re: LTS release or not

uot;Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2016 13:36:06 > Subject: Re: LTS release or not > Any version that is not a year old should be LTS in my view. We must as > reviewers take car

Re: LTS release or not

release? 6 months, 12 months? Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro - Original Message - > From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Sent: Monday, 11 January,

Re: LTS release or not

in addition to mainline. > > The way I see it, one way to have this sorted is by means of commercial > offerings from companies such as ShapeBlue. > > What lifetime are we talking rougly for an LTS release? 6 months, 12 > months? > > Lucian > > -- > Sent from the

Re: LTS release or not

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Rene Moser wrote: > >> * Fix must be important. > >> > > > > Who defines what 'important' is? > > "must be important" means we do not backport trivial things like typos > in docs and so forth, only important things. And I would say important >

Re: LTS release or not

rkflow. > > > > > > -- > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > > Nux! > > www.nux.ro > > > > - Original Message - > >> From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >> To: "dev"

Re: LTS release or not

On 01/11/2016 02:28 PM, Nux! wrote: > What lifetime are we talking rougly for an LTS release? 6 months, 12 months? I thought about 18 months. After 12 months we define a new LTS. So users have a 6 months time frame to switch from LTS to LTS.

Re: LTS release or not

s the benefit of the new workflow. > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > - Original Message - >> From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apac

Re: LTS release or not

There may have to be some rules about patches such as "You may not apply any bug fix to a minor release that will break the upgrade path." So 4.6.0, 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 can all be upgraded to 4.7.0 or the latest 4.7.x If a user absolutely needs a fix that breaks this, then it is their problem to

Re: LTS release or not

nd LTS maintenance should be much >easier as the upstream ( 4.7+) gets the benefit of the new workflow. > > > > >> -- >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> Nux! >> www.nux.ro >> >> - Original Message ----- >>> From: "

Re: LTS release or not

Hi Remi On 01/11/2016 04:16 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote: > Maintaining LTS is harder than it seems. For example with upgrading. You can > only upgrade to versions that are released _after_ the specific LTS version. > This due to the way upgrades work. If you release 4.7.7 when we’re on say > 4.10,

Re: LTS release or not

here. > > > >The reason being that subsequent upgrade and LTS maintenance should be > much easier as the upstream ( 4.7+) gets the benefit of the new workflow. > > > > > > > > > >> -- > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >

Re: LTS release or not

Hi René, Yes, except there’s nothing in CloudStack that can handle such a version and I’m unsure if the extra dot works. If you call it 4.5.2-1 it works. You could only give the package a new version and then re-release 4.5.2. Although that probably is not compatible with the Apache release

Re: LTS release or not

On 01/10/2016 11:46 PM, Erik Weber wrote: > What if the fix is part of a refactorization or a new feature? > Providing a LTS is not 'easy as pie' with a product like CloudStack where a > lot of code changes over time. Didn't say it's easy :) Yes re-factorization is one of the unsolved

Re: LTS release or not

Rene, I would advice to support 4.7 as LTS. It adheres to the new development/release process unlike 4.5 and any bugfixes there can automatically be merged forward to newer releases to reduce the chance of regression. I am in favour of the general concept. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:12 AM,

Re: LTS release or not

Daan Have not yet decided which version, but fixes will be backported into LTS not the other way around. But I see what you mean. The code base may have much diverted before 4.7 right? It is not really a problem. It only means more work (argh...). Sooner or later this will happen for every

Re: LTS release or not

On 01/09/2016 11:51 PM, Rene Moser wrote: > Hi > > I recently started a discussion about the current release process. You > may have noticed that CloudStack had a few releases in the last 2 months. > > My concerns were that many CloudStack users will be confused about these > many releases

Re: LTS release or not

On 01/10/2016 09:58 PM, Rene Moser wrote: > Hi Wido > > On 01/10/2016 08:23 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> I personally am against LTS versions. If we keep the release cycle short >> enough each .1 increment in version will only include a very small set >> of features and bug fixes. >> >> In

Re: LTS release or not

Hi Wido On 01/10/2016 08:23 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > I personally am against LTS versions. If we keep the release cycle short > enough each .1 increment in version will only include a very small set > of features and bug fixes. > > In the old days it took months for a release, if we bring

Re: LTS release or not

On 01/10/2016 10:07 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Ok, understood. However, it will be up to users on their own to pick > this LTS maintainment up. It would be up to the devs making fixes small (so no squashing for fixes) and notify the one maintaining the LTS version if they feel the fix is

Re: LTS release or not

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Rene Moser wrote: > > On 01/10/2016 10:07 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > Ok, understood. However, it will be up to users on their own to pick > > this LTS maintainment up. > > It would be up to the devs making fixes small (so no squashing

LTS release or not

Hi I recently started a discussion about the current release process. You may have noticed that CloudStack had a few releases in the last 2 months. My concerns were that many CloudStack users will be confused about these many releases (which one to take? Are fixes backported? How long will it