Well, moving this discussion is easy. All that takes is everyone posting
responses to the openstack-...@lists.openstack.org mailing list instead of dev
and ops lists. I've cc'ed all here. I've also added [LTS] to the subject
(sorry to break all the threaders). So that the sig list knows what
On 14 Nov 2017, at 16:08, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and
I can think of a few ideas, though some sound painful on paper Not really
recommending anything, just thinking out loud...
One idea is that at the root of chaos monkey. If something is hard, do it
frequently. If upgrading is hard, we need to be doing it constantly so the pain
gets largely e
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Rochelle Grober
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This discussion and the people interested in it seem like a perfect
> application of the SIG process. By turning LTS into a SIG, everyone can
> discuss the issues on the SIG mailing list and the discussion shouldn't end
> up
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact
>>> that upgrades are hugely time consuming still.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact
>>> that upgrades are hugely time consuming still.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>> The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact
>>> that upgrades are hugely time consuming still.
For those wondering why operators can’t always upgrade sooner, I can add a
little bit of color: In our clouds, we have a couple vendors (one network
plugin, one cinder driver) and those vendors typically are 1-3 releases behind
‘cutting edge’. By the time they support the version we want to go
On 14 Nov 2017, at 15:18, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M 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 deve
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M 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
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
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> This was raised several times, now I want to bring it to the wider audience.
> We're planning [1] to deprecate classic drivers in Queens and remove them in
> Rocky. It was pointed at the Forum that we'd better provide an automa
Folks,
This discussion and the people interested in it seem like a perfect application
of the SIG process. By turning LTS into a SIG, everyone can discuss the issues
on the SIG mailing list and the discussion shouldn't end up split. If it turns
into a project, great. If a solution is found t
On 11/14/2017 06:21 PM, Erik McCormick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite
wrote:
Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across
-dev and -operators.
One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as
though there are two issues be
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite
wrote:
> Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across
> -dev and -operators.
>
> One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as
> though there are two issues being discussed under the one banner:
> 1)
Blair,
Please add #2 as a line proposal in:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LTS-proposal
So far it's focused on #1
Thanks,
Dims
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Blair Bethwaite
wrote:
> Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across
> -dev and -operators.
>
> One small
Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across
-dev and -operators.
One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as
though there are two issues being discussed under the one banner:
1) maintain old releases for longer
2) do stable releases less frequent
Flavio, Saverio,
Agree, that review may be a good example of what could be done. More info below.
Saverio said - "with the old Stable Release thinking this patch would
not be accepted on old stable branches."
My response - "Those branches are still under stable policy. That has
not changed just b
On 14/11/17 22:33 +1100, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Saverio,
This is still under the stable team reviews... NOT LTS.
Your contacts for the Nova Stable team is ...
https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/540,members
Let's please be clear, we need new people to help with LTS plans.
Current team
Hi folks!
This was raised several times, now I want to bring it to the wider audience.
We're planning [1] to deprecate classic drivers in Queens and remove them in
Rocky. It was pointed at the Forum that we'd better provide an automatic migration.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the options:
Hi Team,
Can we create volume backup through heat template?
Thanks,
Bhumika
-Original Message-
From: openstack-operators-requ...@lists.openstack.org
[mailto:openstack-operators-requ...@lists.openstack.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:30 PM
To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.
Saverio,
This is still under the stable team reviews... NOT LTS.
Your contacts for the Nova Stable team is ...
https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/540,members
Let's please be clear, we need new people to help with LTS plans.
Current teams can't scale, they should not have to and it's tot
Hello,
here an example of a trivial patch that is important for people that
do operations, and they have to troubleshoot stuff.
with the old Stable Release thinking this patch would not be accepted
on old stable branches.
Let's see if this gets accepted back to stable/newton
https://review.open
23 matches
Mail list logo
