cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Support lifetime
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:17:35 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:05 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Support lifetime
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:04 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Support lifetime
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:34:41AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 03:00 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> >> >> I stated my opinion on this previously [1], but for the record again:
> >> >>
> >> >> I would suggest that we only do bug-fix releases for:
> >> >>
> >> >> - The latest feature release of our active major version number (i.e.:
> >> >>  4.x)
> >>
> >> To make sure I get this right:
> >>
> >> So Once we release 4.2 we will only bug fix 4.1 and stop bug fixing 4.0 ?
> >
> > That's what I'm proposing, yes.
> >
> >>
> >> >> - The latest feature release of our last major version number
> >> >> (doesn't  exist today, but will be 4.x when / if we bump to 5.0)
> >>
> >> Once we jump to 5.X we will bug fix the latest 4.x release (if it's 4.2, we
> will stop bug fixing 4.1) ?
> >>
> >
> > That's also what I'm proposing, yup.
> >
> >> The really crucial part for me is to make sure we have a really solid/tested
> upgrade path. We cannot leave anyone out in the cold of a "unsupported"
> release.
> >>
> >
> > Indeed.  Upgrades remain critical to this project.  We need to
> > constantly ensure that we have upgrade paths available from any
> > version to the latest version.
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Just my opinion though.  Others?
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/quzgjne44prl5m2c
> >> >
> >> > Given the current levels of participation on dot-releases, I think
> >> > this is the most realistic approach that's good for the community.
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> 
> 
> > So software typically has several stages:
> 
> > Does end of support mean both of these things simultaneously.
> > No more bugfixes
> > No more security fixes
> 
> > So wearing your enterprise software consumer hat - does a support
> > lifetime of approximately 12 months make sense? (not saying it
> > doesn't, just asking the question) Under the above proposal we'd end
> > support for the 4.0 line after 4.2 releases. (I'd personally say we  >
> > should add a month (so that EOL is one month after 4.n+2 releases,
> > with the understanding that 4.n is likely to only receive security
> > fixes if any during that extra one month window)
> 
> > --David
> 
> I think a 12 month support is reasonable for bug fixes and security patches.
> Now if we adhere to a release schedule of 4 months, we will have 3 new
> releases every year, within 24 month cycle, there is going to be 6 versions of
> CloudStack to either release or maintain.
> 
> Does anyone else besides myself thinks it's a little too much to handle?
> 


If I do the math right, 34 (not 36) months from now, we are going to maintain 9 versions of
cloudstack.
Forward looking, it gets complicated. We release 3 versions per year, and yet only 1 rolls
off the support.


Mime
View raw message