Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread Arkady.Kanevsky
It is a sign of the maturity of OpenStack. With lots of deployment and most of them in production, the emphasis is shifting from rapid functionality additions to stability, manageability, and long term operability. -Original Message- From: Melvin Hillsman [mailto:mrhills...@gmail.com] S

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread Melvin Hillsman
I think this is a good opportunity to allow some stress relief to the developer community and offer space for more discussions with operators where some operators do not feel like they are bothering/bugging developers. I believe this is the main gain for operators; my personal opinion. In genera

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2017-12-13 22:35:41 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > It's not really fait accompli, it's just a proposal up for discussion at > this stage. Which is the reason why I started the thread on -dev -- to > check the sanity of the change from a dev perspective first. If it makes > things h

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread David Medberry
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > David Medberry wrote: > While it may have desirable side-effects on the ops side (something I'm > not convinced of), the main reason for it is imho to align our rhythm > with our current development pace / developer capabilities. I felt lik

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread Thierry Carrez
David Medberry wrote: > Just saw some of your comments (great, thanks), and I'll weigh in if I > come up with a cogent input. > > I'd really like to see Bloomberg, RAX, and Cirrus7, Huawei, and other > ops folks respond. > > I suspect this is already a fait accompli but there are many details (as

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread Chris Morgan
Since Bloomberg was mentioned, I agree with Thierry's rationale quite a bit. I need to read it more carefully but initial response, gut feel, very positive. When I can I'll a) read carefully b) respond on -dev Chris On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:00 PM, David Medberry wrote: > Just saw some of your

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread David Medberry
Just saw some of your comments (great, thanks), and I'll weigh in if I come up with a cogent input. I'd really like to see Bloomberg, RAX, and Cirrus7, Huawei, and other ops folks respond. I suspect this is already a fait accompli but there are many details (as you mentioned already in one postin

Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread Sean McGinnis
Would be great to get ops-side input. I didn't want to cross-post because I'm sure this is going to be a big thread and go on for a while. But I would encourage anyone with input to jump in on that thread. We could also discuss it separately here and I can try to answer questions or feed that input

[Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal

2017-12-13 Thread David Medberry
Hi all, Please read Thierry's email to the openstack-dev list this morning and follow the thread (getting long already just two hours in.) This references some ideas and concerns that have come from the Ops community, but this is specifically a -dev thread (but I suspect a lot of ramifications fo