cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mice Xia" <mice_...@tcloudcomputing.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:20:16 GMT
+1

-Mice

-----Original Message-----
From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi [mailto:sateesh.chodapuneedi@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 12:04 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

+1 [Binding]

Regards,
Sateesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:cloudstack@aprateek.com]
> Sent: 04 June 2013 09:23
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
> 
> +1 [binding].
> 
> -abhi
> 
> On 04/06/13 6:43 AM, "Hiroaki KAWAI" <kawai@stratosphere.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> >+1 because "4.2 will be delayed because 4.1 have been delayed"
> >makes sense to me.
> >
> >Basically, time based release focuses on time only, not quality or 
> >feature. That's the nature of time based release, IMHO.
> >I'm not voting +1 for new feature, and at the same time, I feel 
> >unfair to vote -1 for blocking new feature.
> >I'd like to vote for reasonable time based release.
> >
> ># I think the version numbering scheme is somewhat problematic.
> ># Why not "Cloudstack version 2013Q1" if our release is based on time.
> >
> >## By the way, I'm -0 about time based release.
> >
> >
> >(2013/06/03 22:46), Chip Childers wrote:
> >> Reminder to please VOTE here.  This vote will close tomorrow, and 
> >> your opinion counts.
> >>
> >> -chip
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00:21AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> >>> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature 
> >>>freeze  date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear 
> >>>consensus.
> >>>Well...
> >>> we have already defined the "project rules" for figuring out what 
> >>>to do.
> >>> In out project by-laws [2], we have defined a "release plan"
> >>>decision as
> >>> follows:
> >>>
> >>>> 3.4.2. Release Plan
> >>>>
> >>>> Defines the timetable and work items for a release. The plan also 
> >>>> nominates a Release Manager.
> >>>>
> >>>> A lazy majority of active committers is required for approval.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must 
> >>>>occur  on a project development mailing list.
> >>>
> >>> And our lazy majority is defined as:
> >>>
> >>>> 3.2.2. Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 
> >>>> votes and more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes.
> >>>
> >>> Our current plan is the starting point, so this VOTE is a vote to 
> >>>change  the current plan.  We require a 72 hour window for this 
> >>>vote, so IMO we are  in an odd position where the feature freeze 
> >>>date is at least extended until  Tuesday of next week.
> >>>
> >>> Our current plan of record for 4.2.0 is at [3].
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/vi3nsd2yo763kzua
> >>> [2] http://s.apache.org/csbylaws
> >>> [3]
> >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Cloudstack+4
> >>>.2
> >>>+Re
> >>>lease
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to call a VOTE on the following:
> >>>
> >>> Proposal: Extend the feature freeze date for our 4.2.0 feature 
> >>> release from today (2013-05-31) to 2013-06-28.  All other dates 
> >>> following the feature freeze date in the plan would be pushed out 4 weeks
as well.
> >>>
> >>> Please respond with one of the following:
> >>>
> >>> +1 : change the plan as listed above
> >>> +/-0 : no strong opinion, but leaning + or -
> >>> -1 : do not change the plan
> >>>
> >>> This vote will remain open until Tuesday morning US eastern time.
> >>>
> >>> -chip
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message