Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-15 Thread Doug Hellmann
ent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:08 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Cc: openstack-oper. > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Dickinson <m...@not.mn> w

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-15 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2017-11-15 00:37:26 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote: [...] > One idea is that at the root of chaos monkey. If something is > hard, do it frequently. If upgrading is hard, we need to be doing > it constantly so the pain gets largely eliminated. One idea would > be to discourage the use of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-15 Thread Thierry Carrez
John Dickinson wrote: > What I heard from ops in the room is that they want (to start) one > release a year who's branch isn't deleted after a year. What if that's > exactly what we did? I propose that OpenStack only do one release a year > instead of two. We still keep N-2 stable releases around.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-15 Thread Thierry Carrez
Rochelle Grober wrote: > Folks, > > This discussion and the people interested in it seem like a perfect > application of the SIG process. By turning LTS into a SIG, everyone can > discuss the issues on the SIG mailing list and the discussion shouldn't end > up split. If it turns into a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread John Dickinson
On 14 Nov 2017, at 16:08, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Dickinson wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: The pressure for #2 comes from

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Fox, Kevin M
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: openstack-oper. Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Dickinson <m...@not.mn> wrote: > > > On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Erik McCormick
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Rochelle Grober wrote: > Folks, > > This discussion and the people interested in it seem like a perfect > application of the SIG process. By turning LTS into a SIG, everyone can > discuss the issues on the SIG mailing list and the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Erik McCormick
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, John Dickinson wrote: > > > On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: >>> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact >>> that upgrades

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Davanum Srinivas
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Dickinson wrote: > > > On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: >>> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact >>> that

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Mathieu Gagné
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, John Dickinson wrote: > > > On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: >>> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact >>> that upgrades

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Mike Smith
For those wondering why operators can’t always upgrade sooner, I can add a little bit of color: In our clouds, we have a couple vendors (one network plugin, one cinder driver) and those vendors typically are 1-3 releases behind ‘cutting edge’. By the time they support the version we want to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread John Dickinson
On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: >> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact >> that upgrades are hugely time consuming still. >> >> If you want to reduce the push for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Mathieu Gagné
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact > that upgrades are hugely time consuming still. > > If you want to reduce the push for number #2 and help developers get their > wish of getting

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Fox, Kevin M
-operators] Upstream LTS Releases On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite <blair.bethwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across > -dev and -operators. > > One small observation from the discussion so far is that it

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
On 11/14/2017 06:21 PM, Erik McCormick wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite wrote: Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across -dev and -operators. One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-14 Thread Erik McCormick
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite wrote: > Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across > -dev and -operators. > > One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as > though there are two issues being

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-13 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
On 11/10/2017 11:51 PM, John Dickinson wrote: On 7 Nov 2017, at 15:28, Erik McCormick wrote: Hello Ops folks, This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and very productive session about how to go about keeping a selection of past releases available and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-10 Thread Samuel Cassiba
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:51 PM, John Dickinson wrote: > What I heard from ops in the room is that they want (to start) one release a > year who's branch isn't deleted after a year. What if that's exactly what we > did? I propose that OpenStack only do one release a year instead of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-10 Thread Blair Bethwaite
I missed this session but the discussion strikes a chord as this is something I've been saying on my user survey every 6 months. On 11 November 2017 at 09:51, John Dickinson wrote: > What I heard from ops in the room is that they want (to start) one release a > year who's branch

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Upstream LTS Releases

2017-11-10 Thread John Dickinson
On 7 Nov 2017, at 15:28, Erik McCormick wrote: > Hello Ops folks, > > This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and very > productive session about how to go about keeping a selection of past > releases available and maintained for a longer period of time (LTS). > > There was