It seems that this is where the "vendor vs upstream" argument really hits home. I think Tom hit it on the head: there's a delicate balance between how much resources "the community" can spend maintaining a release, vs when you should rely on a vendor. We had a similar discussion back in the Diablo timeframe when "the community" stopped releasing packages. It was just too much overhead for the foundation to manage their own package pipeline when that was viewed as something vendors should be handling.
I do agree, however, from an operator standpoint the window for dropping support for older releases upstream seems quite short. This leads to big deploys, who aren't/can't move as quickly as upstream, causing massive fragmentation. So and so finds an issue and goes to their vendor, who fixes it in their distro. So and so someone else finds an issue and goes to their other vendor, who fixes it in their distro. Without a common resource to pool stability/bugfixes we end up with a lot of what are effectively forks of older (but still vendor supported) "stable" code. Perhaps a good solution would be for the foundation to allow a process by which vendors may maintain "canonical" (no pun intended) stable branches which are community endorsed. Then everyone has a common stable resource to pull from, but the onus for maintaining it lies on the ones who more directly benefit from it: the vendors. On 11/9/15, 12:22 PM, "matt" <m...@nycresistor.com> wrote: >tons from what i've seen. there are a LOT of havana and even earlier stuff >out there. essex is still out there in the wild. > >On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Jeremy Stanley ><fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: > >On 2015-11-09 19:01:36 +0000 (+0000), Tom Cameron wrote: >[...] >> 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? > >The most recent OpenStack User Survey Report has an awesome trending >analysis answering this exact question. See page 22 (labeled 21) of >https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/Public-User-Survey-Report.pdf >for a very appropriate graph. >-- >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
