Not at all. We have this: http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ I would expect that whatever distribution I install Ceph LTS release on will be supported for the time specified. That means if I install Hammer on CentOS 6 now it will stay supported until 3Q/2016. Of course if in the meantime the distribution itself becomes unsupported then it makes sense to stop supporting it for Ceph as well, but that’s probably not the case here: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata I don’t expect Ceph to be supported until EOL of the distro. Jan > On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:34, Handzik, Joe <joseph.t.handzik@xxxxxx> wrote: > > So, essentially, you'd vote that all LTS/enterprise releases be supported until their vendor's (canonical, Suse, red hat) designated EOL date? Not voting either way, just trying to put a date stamp on some of this. > > Joe > >> On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Jan “Zviratko” Schermer <zviratko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this >> is not right. >> >> You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have >> ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on >> once we build a project on top of it >> >> CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise >> apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS >> Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly. >> We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS >> because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those >> vendors, maybe... >> >> Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding >> edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work. >> >> Just my 2 cents... >> >> Jan >> >>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper >>> builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the >>> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for >>> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to >>> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work. >>> >>> "Dropping" them would mean: >>> >>> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and >>> jewel) would not be tested on these distros. >>> >>> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new >>> releases. >>> >>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for >>> future bugfix point releases. >>> >>> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the >>> burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on >>> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the >>> packaging and/or build environment to make it work. >>> >>> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros. >>> Specifically, >>> >>> CentOS6 / RHEL6 >>> Ubuntu precise 12.04 >>> Debian wheezy >>> >>> Would anyone miss them? >>> >>> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit >>> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing >>> upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The >>> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry >>> about packaging and testing them properly.) >>> >>> Thanks! >>> sage >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |