On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Traditionally, we have done a major named "stable" release twice a year, > and every other such release has been an "LTS" release, with fixes > backported for 1-2 years. > > With kraken and luminous we missed our schedule by a lot: instead of > releasing in October and April we released in January and August. > > A few observations: > > - Not a lot of people seem to run the "odd" releases (e.g., infernalis, > kraken). This limits the value of actually making them. It also means > that those who *do* run them are running riskier code (fewer users -> more > bugs). > > - The more recent requirement that upgrading clusters must make a stop at > each LTS (e.g., hammer -> luminous not supported, must go hammer -> jewel > -> lumninous) has been hugely helpful on the development side by reducing > the amount of cross-version compatibility code to maintain and reducing > the number of upgrade combinations to test. > > - When we try to do a time-based "train" release cadence, there always > seems to be some "must-have" thing that delays the release a bit. This > doesn't happen as much with the odd releases, but it definitely happens > with the LTS releases. When the next LTS is a year away, it is hard to > suck it up and wait that long. > > A couple of options: > > * Keep even/odd pattern, and continue being flexible with release dates > > + flexible > - unpredictable > - odd releases of dubious value > > * Keep even/odd pattern, but force a 'train' model with a more regular > cadence > > + predictable schedule > - some features will miss the target and be delayed a year > > * Drop the odd releases but change nothing else (i.e., 12-month release > cadence) > > + eliminate the confusing odd releases with dubious value > > * Drop the odd releases, and aim for a ~9 month cadence. This splits the > difference between the current even/odd pattern we've been doing. > > + eliminate the confusing odd releases with dubious value > + waiting for the next release isn't quite as bad > - required upgrades every 9 months instead of ever 12 months This is my preferred option (second choice would be the next one up, i.e. same thing but annually). Our focus should be on delivering solid stuff, but not necessarily bending over backwards to enable people to run old stuff. Our commitment to releases should be that there are either fixes for that release, or a newer (better) release to upgrade to. Either way there is a solution on offer (and any user/vendor who wants to independently maintain other stable branches is free to do so). John > * Drop the odd releases, but relax the "must upgrade through every LTS" to > allow upgrades across 2 versions (e.g., luminous -> mimic or luminous -> > nautilus). Shorten release cycle (~6-9 months). > > + more flexibility for users > + downstreams have greater choice in adopting an upstrema release > - more LTS branches to maintain > - more upgrade paths to consider > > Other options we should consider? Other thoughts? > > Thanks! > sage > -- > 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
 |