Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2017-11-14 14:01:58 -0600: > On 11/14/2017 01:28 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > I'm not assuming bad intentions, not at all. But there is a lot of involved > > in a > > decision whether to make a backport or not. Will these people be able to > > evaluate a risk of each patch? Do they have enough context on how that > > release > > was implemented and what can break? Do they understand why feature > > backports are > > bad? Why they should not skip (supported) releases when backporting? > > > > I know a lot of very reasonable people who do not understand the things > > above > > really well. > > I would hope that the core team for upstream LTS would be the (hopefully > experienced) people doing the downstream work that already happens within the > various distros. > > Chris >
Presumably those are the same people we've been trying to convince to work on the existing stable branches for the last 5 years. What makes these extended branches more appealing to those people than the existing branches? Is it the reduced requirements on maintaining test jobs? Or maybe some other policy change that could be applied to the stable branches? Doug __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
