* Markus Armbruster (arm...@redhat.com) wrote: > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 10.05.2017 11:08, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:48:53AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > [...] > >> Also unless we're going to get more serious about automated testing to > >> validate machine type compatibility between *all* previously releases, > >> I think that 6 years / 18 releases is too long a time to have any > >> confidence in migration compatibility between versions. > > Seconded. > > > Distro vendors often offer 5 - 10 years support for certain versions of > > their Linux distros, so I think we should at least support 5 years, too. > > Non sequitur. > > Distro vendors put in serious work to keep versions working for 5 - 10 > years. We can't, and we don't. All we do is try not to break things, > which is nice, and helps the distro vendors some, but a far cry from > anything I'd dare call "support". > > Perhaps an argument could be made that us keeping to try for at least 5 > years would help distro vendors enough to be worthwhile. Maybe, but > color me skeptic.
Since I'm often the one having to fix the breakages when we find they've diverged, I would prefer us to try to keep them working upstream. Every time something slips through upstream it's more work for me. Dave > >> IOW, I think you should be more aggressive in culling old machine types > >> that this patch is... > > > > Actually, I like the idea of using the major release versions for > > defining the set of removal - hoping that we will do a v3.0 next year > > which then would support the previous two major release versions 1.x and > > 2.x, but drops support for the 0.xx versions completely ... > > I wouldn't put *that* much weight into our past version numbers. If I > remember correctly, there was no more to 1.0 than a feeling of "this 0.x > thing is getting ridiculous". > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
