cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
Date Thu, 23 May 2013 16:35:09 GMT
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:25:10PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
> > 
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM
> > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edison,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, I will start going through it today.  Based on other
> > > > > > $dayjob responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > [Animesh>] John we are just a few days away  from 4.2 feature
> > > > > freeze, can
> > > > you provide your comments by Friday 5/24.   I would like all feature
> > threads
> > > > to be resolved sooner so that we don't have last minute rush.
> > > >
> > > > I'm just going to comment on this, but not take it much further...
> > > > this type of change is an "architectural" change.  We had previously
> > > > discussed (on several
> > > > threads) that the appropriate time for this sort of thing to hit
> > > > master was
> > > > *early* in the release cycle.  Any reason that that consensus
> > > > doesn't apply here?
> > > [Animesh>] Yes it is an architectural change and discussion on this started
a
> > few weeks back already, Min and Edison wanted to get it in sooner by  4/30
> > but it took longer than anticipated in  preparing for merge and testing on
> > feature branch.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > You're not following me I think.  See this thread on the Javelin merge:
> > 
> > http://markmail.org/message/e6peml5ddkqa6jp4
> > 
> > We have discussed that our preference is for architectural changes to hit
> > master shortly after a feature branch is cut.  Why are we not doing that here?
> 
> This kind of refactor takes time, a lot of time. I think I worked on the merge of primary
storage refactor into master and bug fixes during March(http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/14469),
then started to work on the secondary storage refactor in April(http://markmail.org/message/cspb6xweeupfvpit).
Min and I finished the coding at end of April, then tested for two weeks, send out the merge
request at middle of May.
> With the refactor, the  storage code will be much cleaner, and the performance of S3
will be improved, and integration with other storage vendor will be much easier, and the quality
is ok(33 bugs fired, only 5 left: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22Object_Store_Refactor%22).
Anyway, it's up to the community to decide, merge it or not, we already tried our best to
get it done ASAP.
> 
>

I'm absolutely not questioning the time and effort here.  I know that
you have been working hard, and that testing is happening!

I'm only asking if we, as a community, want to follow the practice of
bringing changes like this in early or late in a cycle.  I thought we
had agreed on doing it early.

Mime
View raw message