[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Release Cycle Observations

On 9/26/19 9:42 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> In last week's nova meeting we also talked about some of this [1]. If 
> you change the release cycle to do major and minor versions, that's 
> going to be pretty complicated for testing upgrades, because grenade 
> goes from major to major based on branches. We could probably make it 
> work (and maybe it's already possible, I don't know to go from tag 
> (minor release) to master, but the point is you're going to blow up the 
> upgrade test matrix and it's not clear anyone is even going to be 
> consuming those minor intermediate releases. I think this is partly why 
> the release team stopped doing a cycle-with-milestone [2] release 
> because no one was consuming the milestone releases.

We've even found that since we started supporting FFU between certain 
releases that many customers won't touch the intervening releases, even 
with six months between them. They're basically on a year-and-a-half 
cycle. This actually makes things worse for the FFU releases because 
having a feature miss one means waiting that much longer for it to show 
up (or we have to carry downstream backports, which sucks).

I know we'd like to have everyone CD'ing master, but for the foreseeable 
future I think it's more likely that we're going to have a non-trivial 
number of deployers who stick to the longest release cycle that can be 
supported, and that's going to create added pressure during feature 
freeze for whatever that release is.