On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: >> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact >> that upgrades are hugely time consuming still. >> >> If you want to reduce the push for number #2 and help developers get their >> wish of getting features into users hands sooner, the path to upgrade really >> needs to be much less painful. >> > > +1000 > > We are upgrading from Kilo to Mitaka. It took 1 year to plan and > execute the upgrade. (and we skipped a version) > Scheduling all the relevant internal teams is a monumental task > because we don't have dedicated teams for those projects and they have > other priorities. > Upgrading affects a LOT of our systems, some we don't fully have > control over. And it can takes months to get new deployment on those > systems. (and after, we have to test compatibility, of course) > > So I guess you can understand my frustration when I'm told to upgrade > more often and that skipping versions is discouraged/unsupported. > At the current pace, I'm just falling behind. I *need* to skip > versions to keep up. > > So for our next upgrades, we plan on skipping even more versions if > the database migration allows it. (except for Nova which is a huge > PITA to be honest due to CellsV1) > I just don't see any other ways to keep up otherwise. ?!?! What does it take for this to never happen again? No operator should need to plan and execute an upgrade for a whole year to upgrade one year's worth of code development. We don't need new policies, new teams, more releases, fewer releases, or anything like that. The goal is NOT "let's have an LTS release". The goal should be "How do we make sure Mattieu and everyone else in the world can actually deploy and use the software we are writing?" Can we drop the entire LTS discussion for now and focus on "make upgrades take less than a year" instead? After we solve that, let's come back around to LTS versions, if needed. I know there's already some work around that. Let's focus there and not be distracted about the best bureaucracy for not deleting two-year-old branches. --John /me puts on asbestos pants > > -- > Mathieu > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
