cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
Date Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:56:57 GMT
John,

+1 on that but it is true for every single feature.  There's no guarantees on how reaching
a feature is.  At least with the javelin changes we know if management server loads, it can't
do much harm.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:43 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
> 
> David,
> 
> I mentioned to Chip on IRC that the biggest challenge for me is that there is
> not a unit test suite that we can run before and after the merge to verify it.
> Therefore, until we expand our unit test coverage, merges of structural
> changes such as javelin will carry an inherently higher risk.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Obviously that doesn't answer the question for this release, and I
> >>> think John's question is a good one. What benefits does 4.1 accrue
> >>> from landing javelin at this point? Obviously after code freeze no new
> >>> features get to make it in, so from a feature standpoint, if it isn't
> >>> directly enabled or can be within one day, I am not sure what the
> >>> point is.
> >>
> >> One consideration is that 4.1 is shaping up to be low on features (other
> than the ones on ip clearance which generally have already been qaed on
> account that they've been released).  The new storage engine getting the
> benefits of 2 months of QA by itself (assuming Edison's hookup code makes it
> into 4.1) is actually a good thing.  I'm less concerned about Spring part as it
> has low risk in what it affects.
> >>
> >> Edison in writing the new storage stuff also attempted to add a standard
> for integration testing.  It would be good to get evals from everyone on if it is
> enough.
> >>
> >> --Alex
> >>
> >
> > Alex - I'm specifically concerned about getting the pending features
> > into master.  Does merging Javelin (1) not impact those pending
> > features, and (2) is it a pre-requisite to any pending features?
> > What's the harm in merging into master immediately after the 4.1
> > branch is cut?  That would seem like the optimal time to have changes
> > like this hit master.
> >
> > Thoughts?


Mime
View raw message