[ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
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 +, 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
Re: [ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
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 +, 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. ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:23:37AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:48:07AM +, 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. -- Flavio ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:48:07AM +, 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. ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
> 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? In fairness I think the community is pretty good as is for backporting bug fixes for all branches. Ian > > thanks, > Kevin. > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben. > > ___ > > discuss mailing list > > disc...@openvswitch.org > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss > > > > ___ > discuss mailing list > disc...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
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. thanks, Kevin. > Thanks, > > Ben. > ___ > discuss mailing list > disc...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss > ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
[ovs-discuss] time for another LTS?
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? Thanks, Ben. ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
