cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Louwers <>
Subject Re: Summary: -1 LTS
Date Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:24:31 GMT

I am +1 on TLS: We have a custom branch of CloudStack, with a few custom patches. Some of
which make sense for everyone, and we’ve committed them back, or plan to do so, but most
of them only work for our specific case, or “cur corners” by dropping features we don’t

An LTS branch would allow us to keep our patches “good” against LTS. Our current tree
is based on 4.5. I’d need to perform some manual patchwork to make them apply against 4.6,
let alone 4.7. Having an LTS would mean I’d only have to do this every few years...

I know this might sound selfish. But I assume I am not the only one in this case…



> On 11 Jan 2016, at 16:18, Daan Hoogland <> wrote:
> (rant alert) I have been stating this in the discuss thread and I don't
> agree with your conclusion; with our new workflow any release is a LTS as
> long as we maintain the discipline of allowing only bugfixes on the release
> they first appeared in (or 4.6 as a start point) If we maintain that
> discipline during review any release henceforth is an LTS. Of course people
> can pay others to backport outside the Apache CloudStack project if they
> want, as well. but the notion that we don't have an LTS at the moment
> hurts. (end of rant)
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Rene Moser <> wrote:
>> LTS by the community is not an option for now:
>> Most of the threads/users/devs had concerns or are skeptical how it can
>> be done in practice.
>> As we recently changed the release process, it seems to "early" to
>> change it again or add new processes to it.
>> I still think CloudStack need some kind of LTS to serve business needs
>> but unsure if _we_ as community should do it.
>> Thanks for participating.
>> Regards
>> René
> -- 
> Daan

View raw message