You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2013/04/30 04:47:00 UTC
[DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Hi all,
I'd like to propose that we EOL support for ATS v3.0 soon after we release
v3.4.0. That would be around the June / July time frame. This leaves us
with officially support two major releases simultaneously at any give time,
plus the development releases.
Thought?
-- Leif
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 5/1/13 1:02 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 5/1/13 8:33 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
I started this page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/Release+and+Support+cycles
It splits the life cycle into three phases (dev, LTS and sunset). Sunset
would be critical (think CERT) security fixes only. I on purpose made
Sunset one year for our existing long term releases, since we had not
communicated any such intent earlier. For new releases (v3.4 etc.) I'm
proposing a more aggressive 6 months Sunset period. This gives users
about 1.5 years to migrate off a release. I know we are more aggressive
on releases than e.g. various LTS OS releases, and this is obviously
only an initial suggestions (so please keep the comments / ideas flowing).
Cheers,
-- Leif
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 5/1/13 8:33 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 5/1/13 1:53 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> On 05/01/2013 02:49 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>> On 4/30/13 6:13 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>>> ing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
>>>>> Indeed. Debian (and its users) for example will get ATS 3.0 when
>>>>> the new
>>>>> stable version will be released presumably this week with its own
>>>>> 3 year
>>>>> cycle to start right then.
>>>> All excellent points.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so I'll take this feedback, and start a Wiki page tomorrow. I'm
>>>> attaching an image of what the release roadmap could look like (early
>>>> draft). Also, even though we've said we wanted 6 months release
>>>> cycles, it's actually never happened. So going forward, lets be
>>>> realistic and aim for 1 major release per year :).
>>> I guess not, we can't send attachment for some unknown reasons :-/.
>>>
>>> See http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.pdf
>>>
>>> -- Leif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You do like them pdf files, don't you ;)
Ok, I uploaded a new version, in TIFF, PNG and EPS just for you.
http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.png
http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.eps
http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.tiff
I wasn't going into explaining things here (I'll do it on the wiki), but
as you can tell, I figure we give a 1 year sunset for our older
releases, since we did not make an official committement before. For new
releases, we do a 2year LTS + 6 months Sunset (pretty aggressive, but
things move fast here :).
Cheers,
-- Leif
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 5/1/13 1:53 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 02:49 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>> On 4/30/13 6:13 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>> ing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
>>>> Indeed. Debian (and its users) for example will get ATS 3.0 when the new
>>>> stable version will be released presumably this week with its own 3 year
>>>> cycle to start right then.
>>> All excellent points.
>>>
>>> Ok, so I'll take this feedback, and start a Wiki page tomorrow. I'm
>>> attaching an image of what the release roadmap could look like (early
>>> draft). Also, even though we've said we wanted 6 months release
>>> cycles, it's actually never happened. So going forward, lets be
>>> realistic and aim for 1 major release per year :).
>> I guess not, we can't send attachment for some unknown reasons :-/.
>>
>> See http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.pdf
>>
>> -- Leif
>>
>>
>>
> You do like them pdf files, don't you ;)
> The roadmap suggests 3.4 is already available, maybe nudge >=3.4 half a
Yeah, I already changed that (see updated version). The graph was
implicitly assuming we start the year in June ;).
I'm not sure that the "dev" cycles belongs in there, it's sort of
implied, but let me see what it looks like (every dev cycle is exactly
the time between two releases :).
-- Leif
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
On 05/01/2013 02:49 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 4/30/13 6:13 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>> ing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
>>> Indeed. Debian (and its users) for example will get ATS 3.0 when the new
>>> stable version will be released presumably this week with its own 3 year
>>> cycle to start right then.
>>
>> All excellent points.
>>
>> Ok, so I'll take this feedback, and start a Wiki page tomorrow. I'm
>> attaching an image of what the release roadmap could look like (early
>> draft). Also, even though we've said we wanted 6 months release
>> cycles, it's actually never happened. So going forward, lets be
>> realistic and aim for 1 major release per year :).
> I guess not, we can't send attachment for some unknown reasons :-/.
>
> See http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.pdf
>
> -- Leif
>
>
>
You do like them pdf files, don't you ;)
The roadmap suggests 3.4 is already available, maybe nudge >=3.4 half a
year to the right? That'll put the sunsets ending around December 31st
like the 3.0 and 3.2 releases. Or alternatively add a development period
of 6+ months to them, so we have something like:
[ dev period | 3.4 LTS | sunset ]
[ dev period | 3.6 LTS | sunset ]
[ dev period | 3.8 LTS | sunset ]
I drew an image of what I'm trying to convey at;
http://www.humbedooh.com/roadmap.png - I hope you get the gist of what
I'm saying :)
With regards,
Daniel.
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 4/30/13 6:13 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> ing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
>> Indeed. Debian (and its users) for example will get ATS 3.0 when the new
>> stable version will be released presumably this week with its own 3 year
>> cycle to start right then.
>
> All excellent points.
>
> Ok, so I'll take this feedback, and start a Wiki page tomorrow. I'm
> attaching an image of what the release roadmap could look like (early
> draft). Also, even though we've said we wanted 6 months release
> cycles, it's actually never happened. So going forward, lets be
> realistic and aim for 1 major release per year :).
I guess not, we can't send attachment for some unknown reasons :-/.
See http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/ats/ATS%20Release%20Roadmap.pdf
-- Leif
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 4/30/13 5:09 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30.04.2013 12:33, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> This
>> would however mean that we have a two year support frame for released
>> products, which may or may not be enough for some people, so I'd be
>> interested in hearing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
> Indeed. Debian (and its users) for example will get ATS 3.0 when the new
> stable version will be released presumably this week with its own 3 year
> cycle to start right then.
All excellent points.
Ok, so I'll take this feedback, and start a Wiki page tomorrow. I'm
attaching an image of what the release roadmap could look like (early
draft). Also, even though we've said we wanted 6 months release cycles,
it's actually never happened. So going forward, lets be realistic and
aim for 1 major release per year :).
Cheers!
-- Leif
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Arno Töll <ar...@debian.org>.
Hi,
On 30.04.2013 12:33, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> This
> would however mean that we have a two year support frame for released
> products, which may or may not be enough for some people, so I'd be
> interested in hearing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
Indeed. Debian (and its users) for example will get ATS 3.0 when the new
stable version will be released presumably this week with its own 3 year
cycle to start right then.
Don't get me wrong, I am neither suggesting to adapt to Debian's cycle,
nor do I expect volunteers to support lots of legacy releases. Even less
I want to tell others how they should spend their spare time. I realize
this is not doable. Therefore, supporting no more than two releases at
any given time sounds legit and sane (in Debian we do so likewise by the
way).
I do think however, that we lack clear service level promises and
documentation thereof, and perhaps some change in the release process.
I already tried to find some consensus regarding ATS release cycles a
year back [1]. Generally we aim to release a new stable version every 6
months, which is nice to developers who want to support a code base
reasonably close to git HEAD, but given that the target user group for
ATS are enterprises with larger clusters, they are less likely to move
that often.
Consequently, assuming we'd hold the 6 months cycle, a stable release
would be unsupported after one year (not two as Daniel says), i.e. two
releases ahead. That sounds like a lot of time for desktop users, and
even more so for developers who'd rather cry about the outdated code
rather than happily support it, but it's not a lot of time on the server
user group where deploying a new release involves a 6 months test cycle
on its own.
As an anecdote, we are literally trying to transition since a YEAR (no,
really) from HTTP 2.2 to 2.4 at Debian, because this is a very complex
task involving work by lots of volunteers regarding third party modules
and so on. ATS is not there yet and there aren't so many third party
modules out there, but it could be some day and we should keep that in mind.
We should find some trade-off, perhaps kind of a sunset model
successively decreasing the amount of support granted over time (full
support as we do today, core support for critical and security relevant
bug fixes, security support only), and maybe release less often [2]. :-)
YMMV of course.
[1] <4F...@debian.org>
[2] Although the 3.4 release takes longer than the promised 6 months anyway.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Re: [DISCUSS] EOL Apache Traffic Server v3.0 after v3.4 is released
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
On 04/30/2013 04:47 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to propose that we EOL support for ATS v3.0 soon after we
> release v3.4.0. That would be around the June / July time frame. This
> leaves us with officially support two major releases simultaneously at
> any give time, plus the development releases.
>
> Thought?
>
> -- Leif
>
Speaking as someone who's trying to get exactly that done on another
project *cough ;)* I can only say +1. Having to support two major
versions at once is more than enough for a bunch of volunteers. This
would however mean that we have a two year support frame for released
products, which may or may not be enough for some people, so I'd be
interested in hearing what the users of ATS have to say about this.
Perhaps we need to outline such things on our web site, get an actual
release cycle and/or roadmap up, so people can see what we're aiming at?
With regards,
Daniel.