David Moreau Simard wrote: > This can go down a few different ways, I guess we can: > 1) Extend the support of a stable release by a full year > This keeps the two rolling stable releases plus the one in development. > Not quite LTS, but you know, it's still 2 years of support instead of one. > > 2) Keep the support cycle to a year > This would basically mean that as soon as there is a new release, the > previous one would become EOL ? This is what seems suggested here > and I'm really not confident this would be a great idea. It would force > people to upgrade within weeks after a new release to stay on a > supported version.
There is also the intermediary solution, where branches would be supported for 15 or 18 months, giving a 3-month or 6-month overlap. > As some others have mentioned in the thread, there are pros and cons to > moving to a > year-long cycle and I think it's great that we are having this > discussion as it will help > us make an informed decision. Yes! The proposal is really based on partial feedback I received, which is why I think we should have this discussion publicly to explore the consequences and decide how much of a good idea it would be (or not). -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
