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: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
Date Thu, 23 May 2013 17:50:49 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:35 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
> 
> 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_Re
> factor%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.
[Animesh>] IMHO the goal behind bringing architectural changes early in release is to ensure
stability and proper review and that makes sense.  In this case the goals are being addressed
with testing on feature branch and BVT. Min, Edison did a lot of unit testing for 2 weeks
before sending merge request. Sangeetha / Rayees has filed a number of issues that are being
addressed and the review request was put in last week much ahead of the freeze date.

Mime
View raw message