Well, moving this discussion is easy. All that takes is everyone posting responses to the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list instead of dev and ops lists. I've cc'ed all here. I've also added [LTS] to the subject (sorry to break all the threaders). So that the sig list knows what the general topic is. Yeah. It's not really a topic, but everyone is used to parsing those things, even if the mailserver sw isn't.
But, are the two groups willing to move this discussion to the sigs list? If they are, great. If not, hmmm.
Anyway, here's my attempt to serve....
From: Erik McCormick [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Rochelle Grober firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Rochelle Grober
This discussion and the people interested in it seem like a perfect
application of the SIG process. By turning LTS into a SIG, everyone can
discuss the issues on the SIG mailing list and the discussion shouldn't end up
split. If it turns into a project, great. If a solution is found that doesn't need a
new project, great. Even once there is a decision on how to move forward,
there will still be implementation issues and enhancements, so the SIG could
very well be long-lived. But the important aspect of this is: keeping the
discussion in a place where both devs and ops can follow the whole thing and
act on recommendations.
Food for thought.
Just to add more legs to the spider that is this thread: I think the SIG idea is a
good one. It may evolve into a project team some day, but for now it's a
free-for-all polluting 2 mailing lists, and multiple etherpads. How do we go
about creating one?
From: Blair Bethwaite [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:31 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases
Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously
across -dev and - operators.
One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as
though there are two issues being discussed under the one banner:
1) maintain old releases for longer
2) do stable releases less frequently
It would be interesting to understand if the people who want longer
maintenance windows would be helped by #2.
On 14 November 2017 at 09:25, Doug Hellmann
Excerpts from Bogdan Dobrelya's message of 2017-11-14 17:08:31 +0100:
The concept, in general, is to create a new set of cores from
these groups, and use 3rd party CI to validate patches. There
are lots of details to be worked out yet, but our amazing UC
Committee) will be begin working out the details.
What is the most worrying is the exact "take over" process. Does
it mean that the teams will give away the +2 power to a
different team? Or will our (small) stable teams still be
responsible for landing changes? If so, will they have to learn
how to debug 3rd party CI
Generally, I'm scared of both overloading the teams and losing
the control over quality at the same time :) Probably the final
The quality of backported fixes is expected to be a direct (and
only?) interest of those new teams of new cores, coming from users
and operators and vendors. The more parties to establish their 3rd
We have an unhealthy focus on "3rd party" jobs in this discussion.
We should not assume that they are needed or will be present. They
may be, but we shouldn't build policy around the assumption that
they will. Why would we have third-party jobs on an old branch that
we don't have on master, for instance?
checking jobs, the better proposed changes communicated, which
directly affects the quality in the end. I also suppose,
contributors from ops world will likely be only struggling to see
things getting fixed, and not new features adopted by legacy
deployments they're used
So in theory, this works and as a mainstream developer and
maintainer, you need no to fear of losing control over LTS code :)
Another question is how to not block all on each over, and not
push contributors away when things are getting awry, jobs failing
and merging is blocked for a long time, or there is no consensus
reached in a code review. I propose the LTS policy to enforce CI
jobs be non-voting, as a first step on that way, and giving every
LTS team member a core rights maybe? Not sure if that works though.
I'm not sure what change you're proposing for CI jobs and their
voting status. Do you mean we should make the jobs non-voting as
soon as the branch passes out of the stable support period?
Regarding the review team, anyone on the review team for a branch
that goes out of stable support will need to have +2 rights in that
Otherwise there's no point in saying that they're maintaining the