openstack team mailing list archive

[Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:13 -0700, Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
>> I've updated http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch to put Diablo in
>> the past, and Essex as the current stable release.
>>
>> I'm delighted to see that Mark McLoughlin already has "Stable Branch"
>> on the agenda for the Summit,
>> http://summit.openstack.org/sessions/view/29
>>
>> Before the summit I hope to get clarification on "The stable branch
>> will only be maintained until the next release is out. This period may
>> be extended if there are volunteers to maintain it beyond this point."
>>
>> I suspect we can generally agree that Diablo and future each stable -
>> 1 should still be "supported" for some overlap with the current stable
>> release, and beyond that would be dependent on... well the
>> organizations dependent on that release.
>>
>> How long will https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint continue
>> to maintain Diablo? Based on that we can determine if there is a group
>> interested in continuing to own maintenance for an additional period.
>
> It's a good question, and one that we still need to figure out an answer
> to.
>
> Judging by the level of interest so far in helping to maintain the
> branch, I think this would work:
>
>  - Core projects in a given release have a stable branch for that
>    release maintained by openstack-stable-maint
>
>  - A stable branch is actively maintained (read - the branch
>    maintainers actively monitor master for patches to backport and
>    release new versions from the branch) until the next release comes
>    out
>
>  - A stable branch is then passively maintained (read - the branch
>    maintainers will backport security fixes and accept patches for
>    high impact issues, but will not do new releases) until the next
>    release after that comes out
>
> Giving a current state of stable-maint actively maintaining stable/essex
> and passively maintaining stable/diablo. We will EOL stable/diablo when
> Folsom comes out.
>
> Of course, we can always re-evaluate the policy if interest increases.
>
> Looking forward to discussing further at the summit ...

Thanks Mark. This seems sane, and gives me confidence.

See you next week,
Lloyd