Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of andrei@arhont.com designates
 178.248.108.132 as permitted sender)
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:35:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andrei Mikhailovsky <andrei@arhont.com>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Message-ID: <24939682.329.1417084496301.JavaMail.andrei@tuchka>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMvtBPO7xHxOMt+t61oQdYPY5Sn0u_9OaeULaSqs-bvUhv_HWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EFB6712E-D564-4B05-880E-2671283A6AC5@shapeblue.com>
 <1633077854.21374.1416920945439.JavaMail.zimbra@li.nux.ro>
 <BA0F25BF-C3AF-4E31-B3D4-3F95DAC2B273@shapeblue.com>
 <CAGQtxvZ2EQhCGSMgTa-JoD+BkA0D_phqTM7E5hzpa9uP4kgWtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0A510AFE-A633-4B8A-AC05-C58E951442DF@shapeblue.com>
 <4831C6E4-5164-4E07-AD05-769F012EEC0B@GMAIL.com>
 <CAD97iodWiB_un0vP3i=WBQ-TfsBDxzJ6GRBaAGqLxuyBQ+gLRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMvtBPO7xHxOMt+t61oQdYPY5Sn0u_9OaeULaSqs-bvUhv_HWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_328_22082284.1417084496300"
Thread-Topic: LTS Releases
Thread-Index: 4bAUoXC0IkoyfD9eRUr5oxAyOztaMQ==

------=_Part_328_22082284.1417084496300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1=20

Agree with everything that Andrija have said.=20

The community needs to divert their attention and focus ever so slightly fr=
om producing new features to producing a more stable release. Having the LT=
S releases will capture this approach and will make the product more stable=
 as fresh and less tested features will not be backported and only the fixe=
s will be contributed. Only the dev team has the capability of actually deb=
ugging and fixing the issues.=20

I am not a developer and can only contribute to the existing bugs or create=
 new bug reports, which I have done in the past. It is very frustrating fro=
m a user perspective to see some of the bugs which are effecting their envi=
ronments not being addressed in new releases. I will try for myself to find=
 more time for testing new releases and report back the issues, but I will =
not do this on production anymore. I've already had to downgrade my environ=
ment 3 times because of the problems with the latest releases. From what I =
can see, 4.4.1 is no different from the last couple of unlucky releases, wi=
th many upgrade problem reports on the user list.=20

>From what I can see, ShapeBlue team is doing a great job at backporting iss=
ues already and I hope many developers will join this effort.=20

Andrei=20

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Andrija Panic" <andrija.panic@gmail.com>
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, 27 November, 2014 8:01:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases

> my 2 cents again:

> Whether we have this LTS release or not - is not just about having
> release
> - we need a WAY to focus here on FIXING, POLISHING product and more
> important to stimulate/make developers interested in doing so.
> If this was company owned product, it would be very easy to set
> goals, and
> then speak to devs, fix this, fix that.

> Since this is ofcourse comunity based product - we need some way of
> focusing on fixing the stuff, and really stop adding features (maybe
> not
> completely quit adding features, but...)

> One important note, and possible scenario - just by having LTS
> release, but
> still having majority of developer working on non-LTS release (ading
> new
> features) is a big probability, and then we are back to zero with our
> progress, so I guess this is also an option/problem that we need to
> consider.

> I have a very nice experience with CloudStack so far (in general,
> except
> being frustrated by some childish problems) - if this was all
> polished, and
> documentation complete - I'm 100% sure there will be no better cloud
> project on the market any time soon, and I really mean it !

> It is my wish (and I hope of others) to see CloudStack migrate from
> #CloudstackWorks to #CloudStackRocks for the next CCC and I think
> this is
> VERY much possible.

> On 26 November 2014 at 22:40, Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion891@apache.org>
> wrote:

> > I'm not really in favor of LTS support, it's a good idea, but not
> > sure it
> > can be backed by the community?[open question here ;)]. I don't
> > think it
> > fit in our current model for few reasons:
> >
> > - Upgrade path might become impossible as patches become part of
> > multiple
> > versions. We could end up with problem at database schema with the
> > current
> > db upgrade model.
> >
> > - Enforcing user to stay on a legacy ACS release disallow usage of
> > future
> > hypervisor version, Guest OSes and new hardware used by
> > hypervisors. As
> > hypervisors will become out of date, they won't be able to support
> > new
> > Guest OSes and new hardware.
> >
> > - I think the initiative would dilute the effort on the upgrade
> > path and
> > making sure the upgrade path is easy and always work. Since 4.3.1
> > as been
> > released after 4.4.0, do we know if a 4.3.1 can be upgrade to 4.4.1
> > or
> > event 4.5?
> >
> > - Contribution to ACS and bugfixing become nightmare as bugfix
> > might end
> > up in 4 branches (4.3, 4.4, 4.5, master,...)
> >
> > Why not as community (let's face it, not very a big one) we all
> > focus on
> > the next 4.5 version, make sure it's properly tested, make sure
> > upgrade
> > "just work" and have ACS 4 as the LTS ? ;-)
> >
> > I know a production system is not likely to run the latest version
> > of ACS
> > and upgrade of such a prod tool can occur maybe one or two time a
> > year.
> >
> > That's just my opinion on the subject, nothing against anyone or to
> > block
> > the idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Hugo Trippaers
> > <hugo@trippaers.nl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Top posting here as my remarks are mainly on the original topic.
> > >
> > > I=E2=80=99m not in favor of supporting LTS releases as a community. T=
he
> > > reasoning
> > > here is that there is a huge chance that we will fragment the
> > > community
> > in
> > > people that just want to work on the latest and greatest and some
> > > other
> > > folks who are trying to keep older releases from being updated
> > > with newer
> > > fixes. It requires a lot of dedicated commitment to keep an LTS
> > > release
> > > going. Particularly if you yourself are already working with a
> > > newer
> > > release in your environment. So from a personal standpoint i can
> > > almost
> > > guarantee that i will probably not spend the time and effort of
> > > back
> > > porting any fixes i do to older versions of CloudStack.
> > >
> > > That doesn=E2=80=99t mean that it can=E2=80=99t happen. If people are=
 willing to
> > > take
> > > charge of an LTS branch and are willing to do the work to back
> > > port fixes
> > > where appropriate i would happily support them and even try to
> > > test the
> > > releases so we can have an official release.
> > >
> > > New developers might also be scared by the fact that a fix they
> > > make has
> > > to be supported on multiple branches and might decide not to
> > > commit such
> > a
> > > fix because of the work involved. With the rate of change in the
> > > code at
> > > the moment this is also very hard for seasoned developers, so
> > > much
> > little,
> > > but important stuff changes all the time that back porting is
> > > very
> > > difficult. It is an open source project and generally people will
> > > want to
> > > focus on the latest and greatest and just get their features in.
> > > I=E2=80=99m
> > > already regularly having some trouble back porting between master
> > > and
> > 4.5.
> > > Consider back porting to master, 4.5 and 4.3 as well and having
> > > to test
> > > each branch.
> > >
> > > Basically my point is, everyone who wants to LTS support a
> > > certain branch
> > > is free to do so. Whether or not other contributors or committers
> > > will
> > want
> > > to do that is their choice. As a community we should not make any
> > promises
> > > about LTS support for a certain branch.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Hugo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 25 nov. 2014, at 16:16, Rohit Yadav
> > > > <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Daan,
> > > >
> > > >> On 25-Nov-2014, at 7:26 pm, Daan Hoogland
> > > >> <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> That is worrying, Rohit. As the rest of your mail is already a
> > > >> vote of
> > > >> distrust, this part says we should not release 4.4.2 as it
> > > >> contains
> > > >> regressions.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like you skimmed my email and missed the following from
> > > > my
> > > previous email:
> > > > =E2=80=9CNote: This is not to say that 4.4.x is not stable, we=E2=
=80=99re
> > > > simply saying
> > > we recommend 4.3.x because we have a confidence of its stability
> > > and we
> > > encourage serious CloudStack users to use it.=E2=80=9D
> > > >
> > > > 4.4.x is probably the greatest ACS feature release ever but I
> > > > would
> > > still recommend conservative users (who consult me) to stick to
> > > 4.3.x for
> > > production since we know it just works with least amount of pain.
> > > The
> > other
> > > issue is I know a lot of people who are on ACS 4.3.x still
> > > (including
> > > ShapeBlue=E2=80=99s customers) want to have bugfix releases and they =
may
> > > not want
> > > to migrate to 4.4.x right now since 4.5.x is about 2=E2=80=933 months
> > > away.
> > > >
> > > > ACS when consumed by enterprise companies has a typical
> > > > lifecycle that
> > > lasts at least 6 months, that means someone needs to support it,
> > therefore
> > > the idea of official LTS releases.
> > > >
> > > >> This is a very bad signal to users and the rest of the
> > > >> community. What you are saying is (you in transitive form),
> > > >> 'we won't
> > > >> port fixes to 4.4 but only to 4.3 so upgrade to newer 4.3
> > > >> versions and
> > > >> not to a 4.4 version. You have the right to do so but I don't
> > > >> like it.
> > > >
> > > > In any form I did not say anything about not helping out or not
> > > > porting
> > > things. People who know me, know that I love to help everyone and
> > > I=E2=80=99m
> > quite
> > > prompt at reply and resolving things. I=E2=80=99ve taken the task to
> > > maintain 4.3
> > > and you=E2=80=99re very welcome to go thorough JIRA etc. to backport
> > > things that
> > > you want for 4.4 since you=E2=80=99re alone the gatekeeper of this
> > > branch.
> > > >
> > > > I=E2=80=99m going through these bugs that have a different fix vers=
ion
> > > > (not
> > > 4.3.0 or 4.3.1):
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=3D12329775
> > > >
> > > > Wido suggested that backporting is time consuming so as a
> > > > challenge
> > I=E2=80=99ve
> > > went through 50 issues today, I was able to understand/backport
> > > about 25
> > of
> > > them that qualified for 4.3 branch (many of them were trivial,
> > >
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit;h=
=3Df72eb945540e607ff25917922b4084187246f31a
> > ),
> > > about 10 of them were hard to backport so I=E2=80=99ve asked authors =
to
> > > help
> > out. I
> > > think with this speed I alone should be able to go through like
> > > 300
> > issues
> > > reported on JIRA in about 10-15 days time and after than about
> > > 10-20 days
> > > of testing and getting the bugfix release out. Though if we all
> > > help out
> > we
> > > can get more mileage.
> > > >
> > > > It sucks for me personally that I=E2=80=99ve been emailing you
> > > > privately about
> > > cherry-pick and asking you to pick them on 4.4 (also leaving
> > > messages on
> > > JIRA). I=E2=80=99ll continue to do that :) and meanwhile, you are ver=
y
> > > welcome to
> > > go see the things I picked on 4.3 and pick those applicable on
> > > 4.4.
> > > >
> > > > Yours friendly and as always,
> > > >
> > > > Rohit Yadav
> > > > Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> > > > M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> > > > Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
> > > >
> > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack
> > > > related
> > > services
> > > >
> > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> > > http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> > > > CSForge =E2=80=93 rapid IaaS deployment framework<
> > http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> > > > CloudStack
> > > > Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> > > > CloudStack Software Engineering<
> > > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> > > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> > > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> > > > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<
> > > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> > > >
> > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and
> > > > are
> > > intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
> > > addressed.
> > Any
> > > views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
> > > not
> > > necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related
> > > companies. If
> > you
> > > are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither
> > > take any
> > > action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
> > > Please
> > > contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in
> > > error.
> > > Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales.
> > > ShapeBlue
> > > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is
> > > operated
> > under
> > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda
> > > is a
> > > company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from
> > > Shape
> > > Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The
> > > Republic of
> > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
> > > ShapeBlue
> > is
> > > a registered trademark.
> > >
> > >
> >

> --

> Andrija Pani=C4=87

------=_Part_328_22082284.1417084496300--