On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: > The pressure for #2 comes from the inability to skip upgrades and the fact > that upgrades are hugely time consuming still. > > If you want to reduce the push for number #2 and help developers get their > wish of getting features into users hands sooner, the path to upgrade really > needs to be much less painful. >
+1000 We are upgrading from Kilo to Mitaka. It took 1 year to plan and execute the upgrade. (and we skipped a version) Scheduling all the relevant internal teams is a monumental task because we don't have dedicated teams for those projects and they have other priorities. Upgrading affects a LOT of our systems, some we don't fully have control over. And it can takes months to get new deployment on those systems. (and after, we have to test compatibility, of course) So I guess you can understand my frustration when I'm told to upgrade more often and that skipping versions is discouraged/unsupported. At the current pace, I'm just falling behind. I *need* to skip versions to keep up. So for our next upgrades, we plan on skipping even more versions if the database migration allows it. (except for Nova which is a huge PITA to be honest due to CellsV1) I just don't see any other ways to keep up otherwise. -- Mathieu _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
