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

2015-03-04 Thread Clint Byrum
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 weeks of an 8

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

2015-03-04 Thread Steve Gordon
- Original Message - From: Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org To: James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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:

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

2015-03-04 Thread James Bottomley
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 covered this

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

2015-03-04 Thread Thierry Carrez
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 comparisons with the

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

2015-03-03 Thread Thierry Carrez
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

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

2015-03-03 Thread Chris Dent
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).

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

2015-03-03 Thread James Bottomley
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. First

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

2015-03-02 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-03-02 Thread Joe Gordon
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-03-02 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Daniel, thanks

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

2015-03-02 Thread Clint Byrum
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 observations

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

2015-03-02 Thread James Bottomley
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 months because

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

2015-03-02 Thread Angus Salkeld
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 schedule is that

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

2015-03-02 Thread Doug Hellmann
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+ months

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

2015-03-02 Thread Ihar Hrachyshka
-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

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

2015-03-02 Thread Ihar Hrachyshka
-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, users

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

2015-03-02 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-02-26 Thread Ritesh Raj Sarraf
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 is

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

2015-02-26 Thread Ed Leafe
On Feb 25, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org 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

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

2015-02-26 Thread Chris Dent
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

2015-02-26 Thread Ed Leafe
On Feb 26, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf r...@researchut.com 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

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

2015-02-26 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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 as 6

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

2015-02-25 Thread Alex Glikson
Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org 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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Thomas Goirand
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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Kashyap Chamarthy
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 'critical

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

2015-02-25 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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, and (b)

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

2015-02-25 Thread Thierry Carrez
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!

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

2015-02-24 Thread Sean Dague
On 02/24/2015 03:21 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com mailto:berra...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Joe Gordon
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Russell Bryant
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 this is a

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

2015-02-24 Thread Kashyap Chamarthy
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 project

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

2015-02-24 Thread Flavio Percoco
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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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 that

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

2015-02-24 Thread Chris Dent
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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Chris Dent
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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Russell Bryant
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 on

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

2015-02-24 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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 to do more work. If

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

2015-02-24 Thread Chris Dent
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

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

2015-02-24 Thread David Kranz
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

2015-02-24 Thread John Griffith
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Kranz dkr...@redhat.com 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,

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

2015-02-24 Thread Sean Dague
On 02/24/2015 12:33 PM, John Griffith wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Kranz dkr...@redhat.com mailto:dkr...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Mark Atwood
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

2015-02-24 Thread Robert Collins
On 25 February 2015 at 13:13, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Jeremy Stanley
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

2015-02-24 Thread Robert Collins
On 24 February 2015 at 22:53, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Tom Fifield
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 light

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

2015-02-24 Thread Robert Collins
On 25 February 2015 at 00:05, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org 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