cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nux! <>
Subject Re: LTS release or not
Date Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:17:39 GMT
Guys, I am not a coder to appreciate how sustainable this would be.

Who around here with actual java skills thinks this is achievable in a reasonable way? Cause
if it's not we're just wasting time.


Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Remi Bergsma" <>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 January, 2016 15:36:52
> Subject: Re: LTS release or not

> Hi,
> The method Daan describes can be done from 4.6 and on. It’s about merging a PR
> with a fix, and forward merging it. Not about actually releasing immediately.
> If the bug has always been there, one would merge to 4.6, merge forward to newer
> releases (and finally master) and then back port (aka cherry-pick) to 4.5.
> Regards,
> Remi
> On 12/01/16 15:55, "Ron Wheeler" <> wrote:
>>Depending on how far back the problem originated, this may not be
>>The code might have been massaged many times or code may have been
>>written that depends on the buggy behaviour.
>>If the bug "was always there" but no one had figured out the exploit, it
>>might not be possible to identify any particular commit at all.
>>Would your solution trigger a whole bunch of new releases - 4.4.x,
>>4.5.y, 4.6.z, 4.7.1, etc. or would the fix just be applied to the branch
>>and noted while we wait for enough to accumulate to trigger a new
>>release? Who would want to work on 4.4.x release?
>>The amount of testing required to support all that backporting would
>>certainly deter people from fixing old bugs!
>>No code is bug free so I am not sure how bad it is to say that a bug
>>will only be fixed in the LTS and current release.
>>System administrators can then decide if the bug is worth an update to
>>the fixed version or should be fixed on the release that they currently
>>run,  causing a local fork that they will deal with during their next
>>upgrade cycle.
>>On 12/01/2016 2:18 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> ok, one last €0,01: any bug should be fixed not on the branch but on the
>>> commit it was introduced in and thenn be merged forward. It can then be
>>> merged into any branch that contains the offending commit and there is no
>>> longer any difference between LTS or anything else. Am I speaking
>>> Kardeshian? I am really surprised no one in this list sees source code and
>>> release management this way.
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Ron Wheeler <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> There may have to be some rules about patches such as
>>>> "You may not apply any bug fix to a minor release that will break the
>>>> upgrade path."
>>>> So 4.6.0, 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 can all be upgraded to 4.7.0 or the latest 4.7.x
>>>> If a user absolutely needs a fix that breaks this, then it is their
>>>> problem to upgrade to 4.7.x rather than building a long-term problem into
>>>> stable branch.
>>>> At some point no one will be happy with the latest 4.6.x and everyone will
>>>> upgraded.
>>>> Any user that applies the offending patch to 4.6.2 should know that they
>>>> have created their own misery and will have to work out the upgrade at some
>>>> point or continue their private fork forever.
>>>> There is nothing wrong to saying that "Bug xx is only fixed in version
>>>> 4.8.0 and later".
>>>> Even if version 4.6.5 came out a month after 4.8.0, bug xx is not fixed.
>>>> No piece of software is bug-free so we are really discussing what happens
>>>> once a bug is found and a fix is available.
>>>> 4.6.5 will run exactly like it did before the bug was found.
>>>> Bugs that will cause update issues will trigger a new major release.
>>>> If the current supported releases are 4.6.2 and 4.7.1 then the bug will
>>>> cause a 4.8.0 to come into existence with an upgrade path that goes from
>>>> 4.6.2 to 4.7.0 (or 4.7.1 which should be the identical upgrade) to 4.8.0
>>>> My 2 cents!
>>>> Ron
>>>> On 11/01/2016 10:23 AM, Rene Moser wrote:
>>>>> Hi Remi
>>>>> On 01/11/2016 04:16 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
>>>>>> Maintaining LTS is harder than it seems. For example with upgrading.
>>>>>> can only upgrade to versions that are released _after_ the specific
>>>>>> version. This due to the way upgrades work. If you release 4.7.7
when we’re
>>>>>> on say 4.10, you cannot upgrade to 4.8 or 4.9. The same for 4.5:
>>>>>> cannot upgrade to any 4.6, 4.7 or 4.8 because it simply didn’t
exist when
>>>>>> these versions were released. (4.5.3 has been accounted for so that
>>>>>> work this time). If you want to keep doing 4.5 releases 18 months
from now,
>>>>>> that’s going to be a real issue. Users probably won’t understand
and expect
>>>>>> it to work. And yes, we will change the upgrading procedures but
it’s not
>>>>>> there yet.
>>>>> Out of curiosity. I thought about patch relases like this scheme 4.5.2.x
>>>>> for LTS. This would work right?
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> René
>>>> --
>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>> President
>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>> email:
>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>Ron Wheeler
>>Artifact Software Inc
>>skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

View raw message