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 23:15:13 GMT
I had a chat with Chip on IRC.  His concerns is how does javelin merge cause rippling effects
in existing branches that are still out there and the patches on review board.   His proposal
is to do the following, 

- Maintain two branches: master and javelin.  
- All features that needs the Spring components merge to javelin. 
- On 1/31, merge the two together.
- On merge, javelin will pull in master once again and then merge into master. 

It's a more work for the people working on javelin but it does make it easier for everyone
else so we're willing to take up that responsibility.

--Alex


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:49 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
> 
> 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