Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/9/2015 10:15 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:05:36PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:12:21AM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: The argument in the original post, I think, is that we should not stand in the way of the vendors continuing to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:05:36PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:12:21AM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > The argument in the original post, I think, is that we should not > > stand in the way of the vendors continuing to collaborate on stable > > maintenance in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/9/2015 12:21 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote: [...] Note that it's not just backporters though. It's infra resources too. Aye, there's the rub. We don't just EOL these

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 10 November 2015 at 08:22, matt wrote: > tons from what i've seen. there are a LOT of havana and even earlier stuff > out there. essex is still out there in the wild. >From the Mitaka keynotes we know there are substantial sized public clouds still in production

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:12:21AM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: > The argument in the original post, I think, is that we should not > stand in the way of the vendors continuing to collaborate on stable > maintenance in the upstream context after the EOL date. We already have > distro vendors doing

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote: > [...] > > Note that it's not just backporters though. It's infra resources too. > > Aye, there's the rub. We don't just EOL these branches for fun or > because we hate old

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Certainly the aim is to support upgrades between LTS releases. Getting a meaningful keynote slot at an OpenStack summit is more of a challenge. On 6 Nov 2015 9:27 pm, "Jonathan Proulx" wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:28:13PM +, Mark Baker wrote: > :Worth mentioning

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-06 10:28:41 -0800: > Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800: > > Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44 -0800: > > > > Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time > > > > as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-06 10:28:41 -0800: Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800: Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44 -0800: Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:50:23 -0800: > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-06 10:28:41 -0800: > > Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800: > > > Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44 -0800: > > > > > Worth

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2015-11-06 11:11:02 -0800: > Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-06 10:28:41 -0800: > >> Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800: > >>> Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

I like the idea of LTS releases. Speaking to my own deployments, there are many new features we are not interested in, and wouldn't be, until we can get organizational (cultural) change in place, or see stability and scalability. We can't rely on, or expect, that orgs will move to the CI/CD

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

+1 for some sort of LTS release system. Telcos and risk-averse organizations working with sensitive data might not be able to upgrade nearly as fast as the releases keep coming out. From the summit in Japan it sounds like companies running some fairly critical public infrastructure on

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) are supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS. Support in this context means patches, updates and commercial support (for a fee).

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44 -0800: > > Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time > > as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) > > are supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Erik McCormick's message of 2015-11-06 09:36:44 -0800: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time as > > Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 +

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800: > Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44 -0800: > > > Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time > > > as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) > > > are

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote: [...] > Note that it's not just backporters though. It's infra resources too. Aye, there's the rub. We don't just EOL these branches for fun or because we hate old things or because ooh shiny squirrel. We EOL them at a cadence where the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time as > Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) are > supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

> Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time > as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) > are supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS. > Support in this context means patches, updates and commercial support >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

t;finally" (sigh of relief). :) > > Thanks, > Kevin > > -- > *From:* Jesse Keating [j...@bluebox.net] > *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2015 10:14 AM > *To:* Dan Smith > *Cc:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); > openstack-operat...@l

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer. We (Blue Box, an IBM company) do have a lot of installs on Juno, however we'll be aggressively moving to Kilo, so we are not interested in keeping Juno alive. - jlk On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:37 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2015-11-06 11:11:02 -0800: > Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-06 10:28:41 -0800: > >> Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-06 10:12:21 -0800: > >>> Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer. backporting patches isn't too terribly hard to be honest. you could probably hire a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:28:13PM +, Mark Baker wrote: :Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time as :Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka) are :supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS. Support :in this