The next step for OpenStack
Just after a release, discovery of significant bugs always revives discussion around the need for maintenance branches or point releases. Those discussions, however, are not solving the root cause for the issue, but merely try to do damage control on the consequences.
The root cause for presence of significant bugs in a given release is not the presence or absence of maintenance branches. It's not about the choice of time-based cycles, or the length of it. It's about lack of focus on testing and fixing the release deliverables. If only a few people work on that, while all the others are busy adding new features in trunk, delaying your release by one or more weeks won't change anything.
From tactical to strategic contributions
OpenStack is one of the few open source projects where development is truly shared across multiple companies. The trick is, most companies involved so far are doing what I call tactical contributions: adding a feature that they care about, fix bugs that affect them. Tactical contributions are great to expand a project scope, community and mindshare, however they add technical debt. Companies involved need to move to what I call strategic contributions: funding development resources that care about the end result, the release deliverables, the absence of bugs, the coherence of the features.
The obvious comparison point is the Linux kernel. The reason why it's successful, despite lots of companies only involved in tactical contributions, is that at its core it has a strong group of key developers whose primary allegiance goes to the Linux kernel itself, no matter what company they happen to work for. Those companies understood the necessity of funding strategic contributions.
Currently, especially in Nova, it's quite difficult to get merge proposals reviewed, random bugs fixed, integration tests contributed, or holes in scope covered. That's because most groups are focused on their own objectives, rather than the common project objectives. That's the mindset we need to change now, and that's the only thing that can give us better releases.
The cost of strategic contributions
The problem with strategic contributions is that they are typically more costly than tactical contributions, which have a more obvious return on investment. Accepting to have developers on payroll "fixing what needs to be fixed", or giving 30% free time to all your developers so that they can work on project objectives rather than only your own is not that easy. But OpenStack has now proven that it's here to stay, lots of companies have now bet their strategy on it, so I think the time is now.
If we don't adjust, OpenStack in general (and Nova in particular) will crumble under the technical debt of tactical contributions, and everyone involved will lose. We might need to adjust governance to encourage other companies to invest long-term in project-centered resources. We'll need to set up open, multi-company workgroups (like the recently-setup QA team) to clearly show that it's a common effort. It won't happen in a day, but if we don't change our mindset now, no matter how we adjust the release cycle, Essex deliverables will be of the same quality as Diablo.