Open Stack

How many past versions we support is a balance between upstream community effort required and creating a user/operator-friendly project. Per Tim’s example on the Arch call, the average K8s user is not on the most current release, and in OpenStack the average user is typically N-2. While we want to encourage them to upgrade, it’s just not the operator reality. 

In Vancouver, the game plan on release cadence was to switch to time-based releases for major and minor (x.0.0 and 1.y.0 respectively) as soon as we felt it was feasible. We agreed to lean on the Arch Committee to guide us to when that would be. I feel like having a handle on what our time-based cadence might be will help in evaluating the “upstream community effort required” piece of the puzzle. Any thoughts since Vancouver on what our cadence might look like?


Anne Bertucio
OpenStack Foundation
anne at openstack.org | irc: annabelleB





> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos <jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> If we want to have an stable branch(or branches)
>  
> Some thinks will need to define are:
>  
> Given that we break the compatibility very easy ( I think now is broken) maintain each version serie (1.1.x , 1.2.x.,  etc) will increase our maintenance efforts.
>  
> Do we want to maintain every new release we do ? Or should we pick only one and define a time to be maintained (6 months , 1 yr)?
>  
> Having more than one branch we maintain we will need to rework the packaging provision.
> -          Does OBS supports multiples channels  to have an stable or edge or testing? If not will need to create a new repository every time we do a new release?
> -          Also will need to fix the packaging scripts to make them easy to package any kata version.  Today is need to update the the scripts if there are new dependencies or new files provided in a package.
> -          The same applies to snap, I think will be more easy to maintain this.
>  
> -
> Carlos
>  
>  
>  
>  <>From: Boeuf, Sebastien 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 1:24 PM
> To: Ernst, Eric <eric.ernst at intel.com>; Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>; Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos <jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com>; akapoor87 at gmail.com; rajudev <rajudev at disroot.org>
> Cc: kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io
> Subject: RE: [kata-release] release cadence, process
>  
> Yes, IIRC we agreed (during Arch Committee meeting) about releasing as much 1.1.X releases as we want since they will only include bug fixes.
>  
> Now, on a side note, we'll hit the topic of creating a new branch when we'll have a change breaking the compatibility, but that we'll want to still get the bug fixes into new releases. That's where the complexity starts and where we need to decide about a backporting plan.
>  
> Thanks,
> Sebastien
> From: Ernst, Eric [eric.ernst at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 11:10 AM
> To: Fox, Kevin M; Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos; akapoor87 at gmail.com <mailto:akapoor87 at gmail.com>; rajudev
> Cc: kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io <mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
> Subject: Re: [kata-dev] [kata-release] release cadence, process
> 
> Assuming that the release isn’t changing any APIs, etc.  If its just a bug fix, it would allow this. 
>  
> If any incompat is introduced it’d be a 0.x.0 update.
>  
> --Eric
>  
> From: "Fox, Kevin M" <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov <mailto:Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM
> To: Eric Ernst <eric.ernst at intel.com <mailto:eric.ernst at intel.com>>, "Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos" <jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com <mailto:jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com>>, "akapoor87 at gmail.com <mailto:akapoor87 at gmail.com>" <akapoor87 at gmail.com <mailto:akapoor87 at gmail.com>>, rajudev <rajudev at disroot.org <mailto:rajudev at disroot.org>>
> Cc: "kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io <mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>" <kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io <mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>>
> Subject: RE: [kata-release] release cadence, process
>  
> Based on your 0.0.x comment, I think I know, but am verifying...
> 
> This would still allow upgrading some components while running older components on the same host?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> From: Ernst, Eric [eric.ernst at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:59 AM
> To: Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos; akapoor87 at gmail.com <mailto:akapoor87 at gmail.com>; rajudev
> Cc: kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io <mailto:kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
> Subject: [kata-dev] [kata-release] release cadence, process
> 
> Carlos et al,
>  
> I am proposing that we continue to roll releases; we are having a good amount of fixes merge and I think it warrants having a regular weekly cadence (likely a 0.0.x update).  I believe we discussed this before – let’s start driving it.
>  
> Carlos, Raju, Akshay – from prior emails/request for volunteers, you were all listed for folks to help with packaging and release.  Carlos, is the process defined enough that you think we can start rotating the release duties among more stakeholders?
>  
> WDYT?
>  
> Thx,
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> kata-dev mailing list
> kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io
> http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.katacontainers.io/pipermail/kata-dev/attachments/20180719/d5f16f77/attachment-0001.html>