One thing more to consider, live upgrades still arn't a thing yet, but getting closer. Being able to do it with single version upgrades is a pretty hard thing. Doing it across LTS style releases wouldn't work without a huge amount of effort all on its own.
We may be better off waiting until we get a core OpenStack release that allows live upgrades to work smoothly before calling that thing the first LTS release. Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Tom Cameron [tom.came...@rackspace.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 11:01 AM To: Jeremy Stanley; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer. >From your other thread... >Or else you're saying you intend to fix the current inability of our projects >to skip intermediate releases entirely during upgrades I think without knowing it, that's what most would be suggesting, yeah. Of course, like you mentioned, the real work is in how upgrades get refactored to skip intermediate releases (two or three of them). DB schema changes can basically be rolled up and kept around for a while, so that's not too be a problem. Config files OTOH have no schema or schema validator, so that would require tooling and all kinds of fun (bug prone) wizardry. This is all solvable, but it adds complexity for the sake of what I can only imagine are the extreme minority of users. What do the user/operator surveys say about the usage of older releases? What portion of the user base is actually on releases prior to Havana? -- Tom Cameron ________________________________________ From: Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 12:35 To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer. On 2015-11-09 17:11:35 +0000 (+0000), Tom Cameron wrote: [...] > I support an LTS release strategy because it will allow more > adoption for more sectors by offering that stability everyone's > talking about. But, it shouldn't be a super-super long support > offering. Maybe steal some of Ubuntu's game and do an LTS every 4 > releases or so (24 months), but then maybe Openstack only supports > them for 24 months time? Again, my concern is that this is free, > open source software and you're probably not going to get many > community members to volunteer to offer their precious time fixing > bugs in a 2-year-old codebase that have been fixed for 18 months > in a newer version. [...] Because we want people to be able upgrade their deployments, the problem runs deeper than just backporting some fixes to a particular branch for longer periods of time. Unfortunately the original poster cross-posted this thread to multiple mailing lists so the discussion has rapidly bifurcated, but I addressed this particular topic in my http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-November/078735.html reply. -- Jeremy Stanley _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
