Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2017-11-11 12:19:56 -0500:
> Excerpts from John Dickinson's message of 2017-11-10 14:51:08 -0800:
> > On 7 Nov 2017, at 15:28, Erik McCormick wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Ops folks,
> > >
> > > This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and
Excerpts from John Dickinson's message of 2017-11-10 14:51:08 -0800:
> On 7 Nov 2017, at 15:28, Erik McCormick wrote:
>
> > Hello Ops folks,
> >
> > This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and very
> > productive session about how to go about keeping a selection of past
> >
The 1 year release cycle makes a lot of sense to me too. +1
Saverio
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:51 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
> What I heard from ops in the room is that they want (to start) one release a
> year who's branch isn't deleted after a year. What if that's exactly what we
> did? I propose that OpenStack only do one release a year instead of
"I propose that OpenStack only do one release a year instead of two.”
I am all too happy to chime in and second (or third, or fourth) this notion.
It is extremely challenging for many kinds of organizations (government,
industry) to keep pace with the two releases per year model. I think it
On 7 Nov 2017, at 15:28, Erik McCormick wrote:
> Hello Ops folks,
>
> This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and very
> productive session about how to go about keeping a selection of past
> releases available and maintained for a longer period of time (LTS).
>
> There was
Hello Ops folks,
This morning at the Sydney Summit we had a very well attended and very
productive session about how to go about keeping a selection of past
releases available and maintained for a longer period of time (LTS).
There was agreement in the room that this could be accomplished by