Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 11:19 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Second it's at a very different evolution/maturity point (20 years old > >> vs. 0-4 years old for OpenStack projects). > > > > Yes, but I thought I co

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

- Original Message - > From: "Thierry Carrez" > To: "James Bottomley" > > It's certainly a lot less than you, but we have the entire system > > call > > man pages. It's an official project of the kernel: > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ > > > > And we maintain translatio

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2015-03-04 02:19:48 -0800: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> James Bottomley wrote: > >>> Actually, this is possible: look at Linux, it freezes for 10 weeks of a > >>> 12 month release cycle (or 6 wee

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> James Bottomley wrote: >>> Actually, this is possible: look at Linux, it freezes for 10 weeks of a >>> 12 month release cycle (or 6 weeks of an 8 week one). More on this >>> below. >> >> I'd be careful with compar

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > Actually, this is possible: look at Linux, it freezes for 10 weeks of a > > 12 month release cycle (or 6 weeks of an 8 week one). More on this > > below. > > I'd be careful with comparisons with the Linux kernel

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Thierry Carrez wrote: I'd be careful with comparisons with the Linux kernel. First it's a single bit of software, not a collection of interconnected projects. Second it's at a very different evolution/maturity point (20 years old vs. 0-4 years old for OpenStack projects). Fin

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

James Bottomley wrote: > Actually, this is possible: look at Linux, it freezes for 10 weeks of a > 12 month release cycle (or 6 weeks of an 8 week one). More on this > below. I'd be careful with comparisons with the Linux kernel. First it's a single bit of software, not a collection of interconne

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

Excerpts from Angus Salkeld's message of 2015-03-02 17:08:15 -0800: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:45 AM, James Bottomley < > james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > The key obser

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:45 AM, James Bottomley < james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > [...] > > > The key observations > > > > > > > > > The first key observation from the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > [...] > > The key observations > > > > > > The first key observation from the schedule is that although we have > > a 6 month release cycle, we in fact make 4 releases in that six > > mont

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka >> wrote: >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> thanks for a clear write-up of the matte

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> thanks for a clear write-up of the matter and food for thought. >> >> I think the idea of having more smooth

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> thanks for a clear write-up of the matter and food for thought. >> >> I think the idea of having more smoot

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Daniel, > > thanks for a clear write-up of the matter and food for thought. > > I think the idea of having more smooth development mode that would not > make people to wait for 6+

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Daniel, > > thanks for a clear write-up of the matter and food for thought. > > I think the idea of having more smooth development mode that would not > make people to wait for 6+ month

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/26/2015 01:06 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 02/24/2015 12:27 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> I'm actually trying to judge it from the POV of users, not just >> developers. I find it pretty untenable that in the fast moving >> world of cloud,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Daniel, thanks for a clear write-up of the matter and food for thought. I think the idea of having more smooth development mode that would not make people to wait for 6+ months to release a new feature is great. It's insane to expect that feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Feb 26, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: >> I think you've nailed where the disconnect is between the two sides of this >> issue: what exactly do we see OpenStack being? You brought up several Linux >> vendors who ship on a longish cycle, and who provide LTS for their releases. >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/26/2015 07:06 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > I think you've nailed where the disconnect is between the two sides of this > issue: what exactly do we see OpenStack being? You brought up several Linux > vendors who ship on a longish cycle, and who provide LTS for their releases. > But Linux itself

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Ed Leafe wrote: OpenStack can't be all things to all people. Following the Linux analogy, we need a few companies who want to become OpenStack distributors, packagers, and supporters, in the manner of RedHat, Canonical, etc., are for Linux. As a development project, we need

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Feb 25, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > In fact, if you want to judge from the POV of our users, we should *SLOW > DOWN* our release cycles, and probably move to something like one > release every year or 2. We should also try to have longer periods of > support for our stable releas

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:06:14AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 02/24/2015 12:27 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I'm actually trying to judge it from the POV of users, not just > > developers. I find it pretty untenable that in the fast moving > > world of cloud, users have to wait as long a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/24/2015 12:27 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > I'm actually trying to judge it from the POV of users, not just > developers. I find it pretty untenable that in the fast moving > world of cloud, users have to wait as long as 6 months for a > feature to get into a openstack release, often much l

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

Tom Fifield wrote on 25/02/2015 06:46:13 AM: > On 24/02/15 19:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:05:17PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> [...] > > > I'm not familiar with how the translations works, but if they are > > waiting until the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:31:58AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > >> It's also worth noting that we were on a 3-month cycle at the start of > >> OpenStack. That was dropped after a cataclysmic release that managed the > >> feat of (a) not having anything significant done, an

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:02:36PM -0800, Mark Atwood wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 04:28, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > > > > Along with the below, if push comes to shove, OpenStack Foundation could > > probably try a milder variant (obviously, not all activities can be > > categorized as 'criti

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

Robert Collins wrote: >> It's also worth noting that we were on a 3-month cycle at the start of >> OpenStack. That was dropped after a cataclysmic release that managed the >> feat of (a) not having anything significant done, and (b) have out of >> date documentation and translations. > > Oh! > ht

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 04:28, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > > Along with the below, if push comes to shove, OpenStack Foundation could > probably try a milder variant (obviously, not all activities can be > categorized as 'critical path') of Linux Foundation's "Critical > Infrastructure Protection

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 24/02/15 19:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:05:17PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> [...] First, Daniel, thank you for the well-written and thought-through post. I have some comments on translation specifically which I hope can shed some

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 25 February 2015 at 13:13, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-02-24 11:27:05 + (+), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > [...] >> It would be reasonable for the vulnerability team to take the decision >> that they'll support fixes for master, and any branches that the stable >> team decide to suppo

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 2015-02-24 11:27:05 + (+), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: [...] > It would be reasonable for the vulnerability team to take the decision > that they'll support fixes for master, and any branches that the stable > team decide to support. [...] Well, it's worth noting that the VMT doesn't even

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 25 February 2015 at 00:05, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> [...] > > I think you're judging the cycle from the perspective of developers > only. You said that in the other thread, and I think its false. There is a very good case to be made that the release cycle is direct

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 24 February 2015 at 22:53, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > I was writing this mail for the past few days, but the nova thread > today prompted me to finish it off & send it :-) ++ > The first two observations strongly suggest that the choice of 6 > months as a cycle length is a fairly arbitr

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/24/2015 03:21 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:50:45AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 07:48 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > > On 02/24/2015 12:54 PM, Da

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:50:45AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 07:48 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > > On 02/24/2015 12:54 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:48:29AM +, Chris Dent wrote: > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/24/2015 12:33 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Kranz > wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 09:37 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Sean Dague wrote: > > That also provides a very concrete answer to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Kranz wrote: > On 02/24/2015 09:37 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Sean Dague wrote: >> >> That also provides a very concrete answer to "will people show up". >>> Because if they do, and we get this horizontal refactoring happening, >>> the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/24/2015 09:37 AM, Chris Dent wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Sean Dague wrote: That also provides a very concrete answer to "will people show up". Because if they do, and we get this horizontal refactoring happening, then we get to the point of being able to change release cadences faster. If

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:50:45AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > On 02/24/2015 07:48 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 12:54 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:48:29AM +, Chris Dent wrote: > >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> > need t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Sean Dague wrote: That also provides a very concrete answer to "will people show up". Because if they do, and we get this horizontal refactoring happening, then we get to the point of being able to change release cadences faster. If they don't, we remain with the existing sy

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 24/02/15 11:02 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:44:57AM +, Chris Dent wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >I was writing this mail for the past few days, but the nova thread >today prompted me to finish it off & send it :-) Thanks for doing t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/24/2015 12:54 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:48:29AM +, Chris Dent wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> >>> need to do more work. If this is so, then I don't think this is a blocker, >>> it is just a sign that the project needs to focus o

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On 02/24/2015 01:28 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:54:31AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:48:29AM +, Chris Dent wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> need to do more work. If this is so, then I don't think t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:54:31AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:48:29AM +, Chris Dent wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > >need to do more work. If this is so, then I don't think this is a blocker, > > >it is just a sign that the p

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:48:29AM +, Chris Dent wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > >need to do more work. If this is so, then I don't think this is a blocker, > >it is just a sign that the project needs to focus on providing more resources > >to the teams impacted in

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: need to do more work. If this is so, then I don't think this is a blocker, it is just a sign that the project needs to focus on providing more resources to the teams impacted in that way. What are the mechanisms whereby the project provides more r

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: I was writing this mail for the past few days, but the nova thread today prompted me to finish it off & send it :-) Thanks for doing this. I think you're probably right that the current release cycle has many negative impacts on the development pr