Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: change to 6 months release cycle

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steven

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:44:30PM +1100, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 5/10/2015 10:23 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:04:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 02.10.15 at 19:43, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> The main objection from previous discussion seems to be that "shorter
> >>> release cycle creates burdens for downstream projects". I couldn't
> >>> quite get the idea, but I think we can figure out a way to sort that
> >>> out once we know what exactly the burdens are.
> >>
> >> I don't recall it that way. My main objection remains the resulting
> >> higher burden of maintaining stable trees. Right now, most of the
> >> time we have two trees to maintain. A 6-month release cycle means
> >> three of them (shortening the time we maintain those trees doesn't
> >> seem a viable option to me).
> >>
> >> Similar considerations apply to security maintenance of older trees.
> <snip>
> > Just to throw around some ideas: we can have more stable tree
> > maintainers, we can pick a stable tree every X releases etc etc.
> 
> So everyone else in the industry is increasing their support periods for
> stable things, and we're wanting to go the opposite way?
> 
> Sorry - but this is nuts. Have a stable branch that is actually
> supported properly with backports of security fixes etc - then have a
> 'bleeding edge' branch that rolls with the punches.
> 
> Remember that folks are still running Xen 3.4 on EL5 - and will be at
> least until 2017. I still run the occasional patch for 4.2, and most
> people are on either 4.4 or testing with 4.5 when running with EL6.
> 
> EL6 is supported until November 30, 2020. EL7 until 2024. People are not
> exactly thrilled with EL7 in the virt area - but will eventually move to
> it (or directly to EL8 or EL9).
> 
> The 6 month release cycle is exactly why people don't run Fedora on
> their production environments. Why are we suddenly wanting the same
> release schedule for Xen?
> 
> Sorry - but I'm VERY much against this proposal. Focus on stable and
> complete, not Ooohhhh Shiny!
> 

No, you misunderstand. I'm not advocating shorten stable supports --
that's different issue from how we manage xen-unstable.

Just keep in mind that we *don't* have to stick with current stable
release model. If we fixate on one solution or one aspect of the whole
picture, then there is no problem that we can solve.

Wei.

> -- 
> Steven Haigh
> 
> Email: netwiz@xxxxxxxxx
> Web: http://www.crc.id.au
> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
> 



> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel