On 15 Oct 2020, at 12:39, Hunt, James O <james.o.hunt@intel.com> wrote:
Hi All,
# TL;DR
Is this reasonable: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2.0-dev/docs/Upgradi... ? Comment here or on [6].
In my opinion, this is perfectly non-committal, which is probably what you want at this stage. The only minor wording change is that I would not use the same letter for 1.x and 2.x, i.e. write 1.x and 2.y, or 1.x and 2.0 as this is what we have.
# Introduction
For Kata 1.x, we maintain two stable branches [1]. We will soon be releasing Kata 2.0 [2], and at some point we will create a stable 2.x release.
# Questions
This raises a couple of questions:
- How long will the 1.x stable branches be maintained?
Until the end of times plus one day? More seriously, I believe that there are some aspects where we don't have feature parity yet, e.g. VFIO/SR-IOV. This will happen, but may take a bit more time.
- When will the 2.0 repo [3] make a stable 2.x release?
# Impact
The answers to these questions will impact:
- The Kata project since each branch has an associated maintenance cost. - Kata 1.x -> 2.x migration planning for users. - The backporting process [4] for developers (since when we have a 2.x stable branch, bug fixes may need to be backported to 2.x *and* 1.x stable branches).
# Documented statement
I recently updated the upgrading guide for the upcoming Kata 2.0 release [5]. I put in some words in the "Maintenance warning" section which are pasted verbatim below:
Kata Containers 2.x is the new focus for the Kata Containers development community.
Although Kata Containers 1.x releases will continue to be published for a period of time, once a stable release for Kata Containers 2.x is published, Kata Containers 1.x stable users should consider switching to the Kata 2.x release.
## RFC
Are we happy with this wording? Please comment here or on [6], particularly if you are an Architecture Committee member.
# Can we / should we go further?
Knowing how cautious some users can be, I wonder if we can commit to maintaining the 1.x branches until a *second* 2.x stable release is created.
However, if that were to happen, imho the project would require a firm commitment from the community to support this (backporting activities, PR reviews, etc), due to the extra costs involved.
Cheers,
James
[1] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2.0-dev/docs/Stable-... [2] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/wiki/Kata-Containers-2.0-... [3] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers [4] - https://github.com/kata-containers/community/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#por... [5] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2.0-dev/docs/Upgradi... [6] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/issues/956
--- https://katacontainers.io/ | https://github.com/kata-containers Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation (UK) Limited Registered No. 1134945 (England) Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________ kata-dev mailing list kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.io http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev