Hi, all. Previous reply to wrong thread. Copy here. According to Paul, everything looks ok, but I still feel the website content is lacking of the information. My belief that index should clearly state:
Current LTS 4.9 | updated 2017.11.12 (4.9.3) | EOL=2018.X.Y Previous LTS 4.X | updated 2017.04.01 (4.X.12) | EOL=2017.X.Y Current 4.10 | updated 2017.11.20 (4.10.1) | EOL=2018.05.Y The same is for download page. The reason is that some people don't need new, they need very proven. Other need supported and third group needs features. E.g. Right now we updated our proxmox nodes to latest stable and found windows 8 is no longer works as expected. Previous stable - ok. We rolled back. I mean that it could be a good way for a lot of users to see and realize what options they have. Even now, we still have 4.3 in production and happy. Right now, new person just downloads 4.10 and gets a lot of regressions and unstable code. You might have seen last day e-mail threads. Even templates created from snapshots are broken in 4.10 and it is critical/blocker bug. The user can meet the situation, that after a months when ssvm is reloaded all users lost tons of templates. 22 нояб. 2017 г. 11:49 ПП пользователь "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com> написал: Paul, I thought a 'big mouth' was a prerequisite for the RM position. Isn't that the only reason I was the 4.9 RM? :P *Will Stevens* CTO <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > HI All, > > The current LTS cycle is based on having an LTS release twice a year (at > the time of design, ACS releases were coming out monthly). > > So, twice a year (nominally, January and July) we take the then current > version of CloudStack, and declare that an LTS version, for which would we > would then backport fixes for a period of up to 2 years. Thereby giving > end users a version of CloudStack which would receive bug fixes for an > extended period. > > This year however, the current version in January was the same as the > current version in July, therefore 4.9 became the 'July' LTS as well as > January LTS and therefore 4.9 will be supported until summer 2019 (hence > the 4.9.3 release) > > I and a number of my colleagues remain committed to continue to support > 'LTS' releases in this fashion (there just wasn't anything really to > 'announce' in July), which may be why people think that nothing is > happening. > > With 2 LTS releases a year (6 months apart), 'next LTS +6 months' would > only be 12 months from release. Which I think is really too short a period > for the majority of enterprises. Although we haven't written it this way, > the current scheme gives a EOL of 'next LTS + 18 months'. > > So, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are. The wiki page looks > like it needs updating to be clearer (I'm happy to do that) > > > But I DO think that we should start a new thread asking for a 4.11 RM > volunteer to get things going. (I'm guessing y'all don't what my big > mouth in that position). > > > Kind regards, > > Paul Angus > > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan Kudryavtsev [mailto:kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com] > Sent: 21 November 2017 14:00 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date? > > Hello, it sounds very reasonable. The more lifecycle information the > better for adopters. > > 21 нояб. 2017 г. 8:56 ПП пользователь "Marc-Aurèle Brothier - Exoscale" < > ma...@exoscale.ch> написал: > > > It makes more sense to me too. > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:04 +0100, Rene Moser wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according > > > to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS > > > > > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has > > > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the > > > reason for the LTS). > > > > > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL > > > in relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the > > > current LTS is +6 months after the next LTS release." > > > > > > Small example: > > > > > > Current LTS 4.9 > > > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10. > > > > > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions? > > > > > > Regards > > > René > > >
