To me, if we would like to offer LTS, we need to fix following core issues:
- how database version is handle, right now database structure is mixed
with upgrade*.sql files and some java code
- better test upgrade path, I'm not sure we test them properly :-S
I have to admit I'm not fan of LTS re
The idea of maintaing the release branch longer can be discussed.
But, I am -1 for separate branches and separate release trains.
Maintaing the upgrade paths would be a big overhead.
We are not doing regular releases on the main release branches.
Rohit did a great job for 4.5(though it was backport
schedule.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
> From: Wido den Hollander
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016
> 4:15:36 AMTo: dev@cloudstack.apache.org (
> dev@cloudstack.apache.org ); John BurwellSubject: Re: [PROPOSAL]
> Early LTS Initial Release
> Op 13 jul
proposal. If/when we gain consensus on this change, I will
adjust the schedule.
Thanks,
-John
From: Wido den Hollander
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016
4:15:36 AMTo: dev@cloudstack.apache.org (
dev@cloudstack.apache.org ); John BurwellSubject: Re: [PROPOSAL]
Early LTS
in the original proposal. If/when we gain consensus on this change, I
will adjust the schedule.
Thanks,
-John
From: Wido den Hollander
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 4:15:36 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; John Burwell
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Early LTS Initial
> Op 13 juli 2016 om 18:25 schreef John Burwell :
>
>
> All,
>
> Since LTS introduces a new release stream, I would like to propose that we
> cut the first LTS quickly to verify that various aspects of the release cycle
> and version number dependent components will work properly with the new
All,
Since LTS introduces a new release stream, I would like to propose that we cut
the first LTS quickly to verify that various aspects of the release cycle and
version number dependent components will work properly with the new release
naming scheme. It will also allow us to flesh out distri
