Re: [openstack-dev] [releases] Stable branch conflicting information
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:19:09PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Sean McGinnis wrote: > > So I noticed today that the release information [0] for Newton appears to > > have > > the wrong date for when Newton transitions to the Legacy Phase. According to > > this conversation [1], I think (thought?) we established that rolling over > > to > > each support phase would stay on a 6 month cycle, despite Ocata being a > > shorter > > development cycle. > > > > I am not talking about EOL here, just the transition periods for stable > > branches to move to the next phase. > > > > Based on this, the Next Phase for Newton appears to be wrong because it is > > on > > a 6 month period from the Ocata release, not based on Newton's actual > > release > > date. > > You are correct. Phase transitions are based on the initial release > date, not the next ones. Phase III for Newton should start on 2017-10-06. > Thanks Thierry. I've submitted https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464683/ to correct that. I actually state 2017-10-09 there as it appears most recently all of our transition dates are the first Monday following the 6 month mark. That can be debated in the review though if there are differing opinions on that. > > I was going to put up a patch to fix this, but then got myself really > > confused > > because I couldn't actually reconcile the dates based on how the rest of the > > phase information is listed there. Going off of what we state in our Stable > > Branch phases [2], we are not following what we have published there. > > > > Based on that information, Mitaka should still be in the Legacy phase, and > > not actually EOL'd for another 6 months. (Well, technically that actual EOL > > date isn't called out in the documentation, so I'm just assuming another 6 > > months) > > Actually the duration of stable branch life support is independent of > the definition of the 3 support phases. If you read the end of that > paragraph, it says: > > [snip] > > Currently, the stable maint team supports branches for about 12 months. > Depending on when exactly the branch is EOLed, that basically means you > do not do much (if any) phase III support. > It appears in practice we do not actually do phase III support. We could clarify that, but I suppose leaving it as is gives us some leeway if we do choose to keep a branch around a little longer. It just looks a little odd to me to have the phase III date immediately at or before the EOL date, but on the other hand, that does in fact accurately reflect reality, so not really a concern. > Hope this clarifies, > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [releases] Stable branch conflicting information
Sean McGinnis wrote: > So I noticed today that the release information [0] for Newton appears to have > the wrong date for when Newton transitions to the Legacy Phase. According to > this conversation [1], I think (thought?) we established that rolling over to > each support phase would stay on a 6 month cycle, despite Ocata being a > shorter > development cycle. > > I am not talking about EOL here, just the transition periods for stable > branches to move to the next phase. > > Based on this, the Next Phase for Newton appears to be wrong because it is on > a 6 month period from the Ocata release, not based on Newton's actual release > date. You are correct. Phase transitions are based on the initial release date, not the next ones. Phase III for Newton should start on 2017-10-06. > I was going to put up a patch to fix this, but then got myself really confused > because I couldn't actually reconcile the dates based on how the rest of the > phase information is listed there. Going off of what we state in our Stable > Branch phases [2], we are not following what we have published there. > > Based on that information, Mitaka should still be in the Legacy phase, and > not actually EOL'd for another 6 months. (Well, technically that actual EOL > date isn't called out in the documentation, so I'm just assuming another 6 > months) Actually the duration of stable branch life support is independent of the definition of the 3 support phases. If you read the end of that paragraph, it says: """The exact length of any given stable branch life support is discussed amongst stable branch maintainers and QA/infrastructure teams at every Design Summit. It is generally between 9 and 15 months, at which point the value of the stable branch is clearly outweighed by the cost in maintaining it in our continuous integration systems.""" Currently, the stable maint team supports branches for about 12 months. Depending on when exactly the branch is EOLed, that basically means you do not do much (if any) phase III support. Hope this clarifies, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [releases] Stable branch conflicting information
So I noticed today that the release information [0] for Newton appears to have the wrong date for when Newton transitions to the Legacy Phase. According to this conversation [1], I think (thought?) we established that rolling over to each support phase would stay on a 6 month cycle, despite Ocata being a shorter development cycle. I am not talking about EOL here, just the transition periods for stable branches to move to the next phase. Based on this, the Next Phase for Newton appears to be wrong because it is on a 6 month period from the Ocata release, not based on Newton's actual release date. I was going to put up a patch to fix this, but then got myself really confused because I couldn't actually reconcile the dates based on how the rest of the phase information is listed there. Going off of what we state in our Stable Branch phases [2], we are not following what we have published there. Based on that information, Mitaka should still be in the Legacy phase, and not actually EOL'd for another 6 months. (Well, technically that actual EOL date isn't called out in the documentation, so I'm just assuming another 6 months) So I'm not proposing we un-EOL Mitaka or change any of our policy. I'm just pointing out that the information we have in [2] does not appear to be what we are actually following according to [0], so we should change one or the other to be consistent. Our EOL dates on the releases page are actually the dates they should transition to Phase III according to our Stable Branch "Support Phases" section as it is right now. Sean [0] https://releases.openstack.org/ [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-February/111910.html [2] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#support-phases __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
