For instance, we have thousands of servers still on Icehouse, we were working
on our Mitaka upgrade and for the moment when we will be ready for the upgrade,
we are already by two or three releases.
So, basically, we will be upgrading to a EOL release. Is that fair?
Edgar
On 4/11/17, 8:40 AM, "Kevin Bringard (kevinbri)" <kevin...@cisco.com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:30 AM
To: "Kris G. Lindgren" <klindg...@godaddy.com>, Gaurav Goyal
<er.gauravgo...@gmail.com>, "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org"
<openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>,
"openstack-operators-requ...@lists.openstack.org"
<openstack-operators-requ...@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Help: Liberty installation guide
(English).
We should start having some releases known as LTS. It is very hard to
keep updating the code every six months.
I realize we’re off on a tangent now, but just wanted to say: this, times
infinity. I’ve been making this case since Diablo when we stopped building
packages and starting pushing support to vendors.
Chasing trunk just isn’t feasible for larger organizations, and as Edgar
mentioned, updating the code every 6 months (or even a year) is a really
difficult proposition.
There’s a reason large vendors do LTS releases; it just makes sense.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
