cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Cole <adr...@jclouds.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
Date Mon, 14 May 2012 21:39:18 GMT
It is fair for David to remind us that a big part of that the
transition is the role of the community in what's being released.

With best will in the world, I suspect that's gonna take some time, so...

+1 to the sentiment for frequent releases, even if by Citrix (and +1
to us monitoring/paying attention so that we ensure release management
transitions as soon as practical).

-A
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:09 PM, James Kahn <jkahn@idea11.com.au> wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm not sure how this fits with the Apache model, but as a user of
> CloudStack, I would prefer that Citrix continue to release updates to
> 3.0.x until an Apache release is ready.
>
> Keeping momentum going with releases is important, especially when there
> are a few user affecting bugs (e.g. VNC, custom disk sizes) that are being
> fixed in master. It would be disappointing if we have to wait 10 months or
> so for these to be released. Release early, release often.
>
> Cheers,
> JK.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> Reply-To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 6:15 AM
> To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
>>David,
>>
>>My 2 cents (and possibly drawing flames myself):
>>
>>During the transition period (and beyond), Citrix is going to do what it
>>needs to do as a commercial entity.  While this list is intended to focus
>>on the ASF project itself, it's going to take time for an official Apache
>>release to be approved.  For the purpose of my point, the actual estimate
>>doesn't matter much really...  shorter, longer or the same as the time it
>>took for AOO, it's going to be further off than (I assume) Citrix will
>>wait
>>to create a commercial release of the Citrix Cloud Platform.
>>
>>I do think that there is value for the community to hear about the closed
>>efforts that Citrix completes (or plans to complete), and would disagree
>>with "banning" that type of information from being on this list.  As an
>>individual that happens to work for Citrix, I don't see any conflict with
>>the two hats you wear (as most of us have multiple hats).
>>
>>However, I would suggest that it be limited to important milestones that
>>are being shared more publicly via other channels as well, and should
>>probably be clearly noted as being information from Citrix and not ASF.
>>
>>Examples:  share information when you do a commercial release, but not
>>when
>>a performance test is started by a Citrix QA engineer that's focused on an
>>upcoming commercial product release.
>>
>>I think that sharing public information about Citrix activities on this
>>list is a positive for the overall community.  It's really no different
>>than sharing information about a commercial distributions success in a top
>>level Apache project's dev listing.  It would be informational only, but
>>be
>>a positive bit of news for the community as a whole.  I assume that
>>everyone likes to hear about success stories.
>>
>>Since this is supposed to be a community owned list, I would hope that (if
>>there is consensus on the list) nobody has any issues about information
>>being shared that's of interest to the participants!
>>
>>-chip
>>
>>
>>On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geoff Higginbottom
>>> <geoff.higginbottom@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>> > My concern here is that the roadmap has lots of new features, and we
>>>do
>>> not want to be waiting 6 months for the next release which was due out
>>>in
>>> May
>>> >
>>> > Geoff
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> A valid point - though it's worth pointing out that the roadmap you
>>> are referring to was one from the previous Citrix-governed project
>>> (and was largely driven by Citrix-employed product management) - there
>>> are no guarantees that the timelines, accepted features, or even
>>> version numbers/names will remain the same under Apache governance; as
>>> has been repeatedly pointed out - Citrix (or any other corporation)
>>> has no standing here - only individuals.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message