Hi,
I found this interesting conversation about LTS.
Perhaps another option would be to use an intermediate version like 2.6
instead of using a 2.11 if we want to upgrade the current old LTS
version ?
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 02:53:53PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:23:37AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:48:07AM +0000, Stokes, Ian wrote:
> > > On 10/18/2018 10:46 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > > I've had a number of queries from folks lately about our roadmap for
> > > > LTS releases. It has, indeed, been a long time since we've had a
> > > > long-term support release (the current LTS is 2.5). Usually, we've
> > > > done LTS releases before some kind of big architectural change, etc.,
> > > > and so we've had no real internal pressure within the project to do it
> > > > for a while. But it might be a good signal to the community to bring
> > > > the LTS release forward.
> > > >
> > > > What does everyone think about making the next (2.11) release an LTS?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think it's a good idea. The current LTS is quite old now, especially for
> > > the DPDK datapath. There is a new DPDK LTS coming out in November which
> > > should be in for OVS 2.11, so it would be a nice combination for a user to
> > > have LTS support for both.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > With regards backporting support for LTS releases, I take it LTS takes priority over non LTS branches, that would be the only difference I would think?
>
> Yes, basically we should try harder to backport to LTS branches.
>
> > In fairness I think the community is pretty good as is for backporting
> > bug fixes for all branches.
>
> We do a pretty good job of it most of the time. The main driver for LTS
> releases has been big OVS internal changes that are likely to break
> things. By doing an LTS release just before a version with those kinds
> of changes, we gave our users something to confidently fall back on if
> the next release was a little more unstable--not that we ever aim for
> that, but it happens sometimes. We haven't had that kind of big change
> recently, so we haven't had a natural impetus to release an LTS--and for
> the same reason, it's been easy to backport most fixes because there
> haven't been sweeping changes across the tree.
What comes to mind is if OVN manages to split up from OVS soon.
Wouldn't be easier if OVN, as a separated project, requires
an OVS LTS version? If so, then 2.11 might not be the best one.
That's a good point. It would be reasonable to designate the first
version required by the split OVN as LTS.
--
Benoit
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
