cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
Date Fri, 31 May 2013 15:16:25 GMT
Thanks Chip

Thanks
Animesh

On May 31, 2013, at 7:34 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:

> This thread does *not* appear to have reached a consensus.  As a
> project, we typically work to achieve consensus without any sort of
> formal VOTE.  However, I believe that we are going to need one.
> 
> I'll kick one off momentarily.
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:35:22AM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 30, 2013, at 1:57 PM, "John Burwell" <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I apologize for a lack of clarity in the original proposal, but I intended
>>> for 4 week extension on the feature freeze to be added onto the release and
>>> not encroach on the test window.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -John
>> 
>> [Animesh] So what is the final call are we extending the release by 4 weeks?
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <
>>> sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1  on limiting feature proposals for 1 week so scope would not increase
>>>> dramatically.
>>>> 
>>>> +1 on the time line proposed - The extension proposed by Animesh would
>>>> help to close feature which are almost ready for check-in but need quality
>>>> checks. This would help for overall quality.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12 PM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:42 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 05/30/2013 07:43 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>>>> I'm actually OK with delaying the release (as you pointed out, 4.1
>>>>>> impacted 4.2 in a big way). *I* like flexibility. But it behooves
>>>>>> the community to have a stable set of rules.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is the cognitive dissonance that bothers me. Theoretically a
>>>>>> time-based release doesn't care about such impacts, but reality is
>>>>>> that if someone has been working on a feature for 4 months and it
>>>>>> doesn't make it because of the cut-off, they are going to feel
>>>>>> aggrieved, especially if at some point in the past the community
>>>>> agreed to make an exception.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I ack on this one. A lot of work went into the object store branch
>>>>> (since that's what discussion seems to be pointing at) and it would be
>>>>> a nightmare for the developers to merge this into 4.3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> John had valid points on the merge of the branch, but imho those can
>>>>> be fixed after it's merged in.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's feature freeze, but it doesn't mean that we can't do any
>>>>> squashing of bugs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other developers are also waiting on merging their stuff in after the
>>>>> freeze so it will hit 4.3
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wouldn't open the window for features longer since that might bring
>>>>> more stuff into 4.2 which needs QA as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wido
>>>> [Animesh>] Like in the original schedule for 4.1 / 4.2 feature proposals
>>>> are closed 3-4 weeks before the freeze date, we can still go with
>>>> compromise of 4 weeks extension in feature freeze date but limit feature
>>>> proposal to come in by June 1st week
>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/30/13 3:49 AM, "John Burwell" <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chiradeep,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As I understood that conversation, it was about permanently
>>>>>>> changing the length of release cycles.  I am proposing that we
>>>>>>> acknowledge the impact of the longer than anticipated 4.1.0
>>>>>>> release, and push out 4.2.0.  4.3.0 would still be a four month
>>>>>>> release cycle, it would just start X weeks later.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I like Chip's compromise of 4 weeks.  I think it would be a great
>>>>>>> benefit to the 4.2.0 release if the community had the opportunity
>>>>>>> to completely focus on its development for some period of time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Finally, to David's concern that other features might be added
>>>>>>> during such an extension.  I think that would be acceptable
>>>>>>> provided they pass review.  The goal of my proposal is not permit
>>>>>>> more features but to give the community time to review and
>>>>>>> collaborate on changes coming into the release.  If additional
high
>>>>>>> quality feature implementations happen to get merged in during
that
>>>>>>> period then I consider that a happy side effect.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 30, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Chiradeep Vittal
>>>>>>> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This topic was already discussed here:
>>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg03235.htm
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The consensus then was "revisit *after* 4.2". I won't rehash
the
>>>>>>>> pros and cons, please do familiarize yourself with that thread.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/13 10:10 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"
>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1 Four weeks extra would be ideal in this situation.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>>>>> <runseb@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 30 May 2013, at 06:34, Chip Childers
>>>>>>>>>> <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2013, at 7:59 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay
completing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.0
>>>>>>>>>> release, I would like propose that we re-evaluate
the timelines
>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>> 4.2.0 release.  When the schedule was originally
conceived, it
>>>>>>>>>> was intended that the project would have eight (8)
weeks to
>>>>>>>>>> focus exclusively on
>>>>>>>>>> 4.2.0
>>>>>>>>>> development.  Unfortunately, this delay has created
an
>>>>>>>>>> unfortunate conflict between squashing 4.1.0 bugs
and completing
>>>>>>>>>> 4.2.0 features.  I propose that we acknowledge this
schedule
>>>>>>>>>> impact, and push back the 4.2.0 feature freeze date
by eight (8)
>>>>>>>>>> weeks to 2 August 2013.  This delay will give the
project time
>>>>>>>>>> to properly review merges and address issues holistically,
and,
>>>>>>>>>> hopefully, relieve a good bit of the stress incurred
by the
>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous
>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This is a reasonable idea IMO. I'd probably only
extend by a
>>>>>>>>>>> month personally, but your logic is sound.  I'd
much rather
>>>>>>>>>>> have reasoned discussions about code than argue
procedural
>>>>>>>>>>> issues about timing any day. This might help
facilitate that on
>>>>>>>>>>> some of the features folks are scrambling to
complete.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Others?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I am +1 on this, 4 weeks maybe ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>>>>>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>>>> * *
>> 

Mime
View raw message