On 05/29/2016 10:08 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 05/19/2016 10:25 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Once every 3 months i.e. option 3 sounds good to me.
+1 from my end.
Every 2 months seems to be a bit too much, 4 months is still fine, but gives
us 1 in 3 to pick the LTS, I like 1:4 odds better for the LTS, hence the 3
months (or 'alternative 2').
It would perhaps be worthwhile to extend this release timeline/cadence
discussion into (a) End-of-Life definition and invocation (b) whether
a 'long term support' (assuming that is what LTS is) is of essentially
any value to users of GlusterFS.
I see it as a couple of things here,
- We call one of the intermediate 3 month updates an LTS based on its
stability and quality. This should provide a clean upgrade from the
previous upgrade (as clean as possible at least, and should/could be a
gating factor).
- The use of "one of the" above, is explicit so that we continue the 3
month cadence on update releases, but say the 4th update does not make
the cut then the 5th can, hence have the flexibility on the LTS
Unless we want to be extremely stringent on this.
Next, I would expect that this [1] page would be updated with this
decision, either as soon as 3.8 is released or earlier than that.
(b) especially can be (and perhaps should be) addressed by predictable
and tested upgrade paths to ensure that users are able to get to newer
releases without much hassles.
[1] http://www.gluster.org/community/release-schedule/
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
