Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com> writes: > I think you're missing the reality that intermediate releases have > about zero uptake in the real world. We have had milestone releases of > Nova for years, but I challenge you to find me one non-trivial > deployment that uses one of them. To my knowledge, based on user > surveys, it is only the major 6-month named releases that are > deployed, and even then, some time after their release. > > Integrated releases make sense for deployers. What does it mean if > Nova has some new stuff, but it requires a new release from Cinder in > order to use it, and Cinder hasn't yet released the necessary updates? > Talking about releasing projects on a monthly-tagged basis just dumps > the problem of determining what works with the rest of the codebase > onto the deployers.
Similarly, right now we have easy and uniform points at which we have to make upgrade and compatibility guarantees. Presumably in such a new world order, a project would not be allowed to drop compatibility in an intermediate release, which means we're all being forced into a longer support envelope for versioned APIs, config files, etc. If we did do more of what I assume Doug is suggesting, which is just tag monthly and let the projects decide what to do with upgrades, then we end up with a massively more complex problem (for our own CI, as well as for operators) of mapping out where compatibility begins and ends per-project, instead of at least all aiming for the same point in the timeline. --Dan __________________________________________________________________________ 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
