Open Stack

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 12:39, Hunt, James O <james.o.hunt at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> # TL;DR
> 
> Is this reasonable: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2.0-dev/docs/Upgrading.md#maintenance-warning ? 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-Branch-Strategy.md#branch-management
> [2] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/wiki/Kata-Containers-2.0-Roadmap
> [3] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
> [4] - https://github.com/kata-containers/community/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#porting
> [5] - https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2.0-dev/docs/Upgrading.md
> [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 at lists.katacontainers.io
> http://lists.katacontainers.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kata-dev