cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
Date Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:12:33 GMT

On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:

> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and
>> more automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating
>> for and Prasanna has done outstanding working on BVT, jenkins and the
>> test matrix), we need to focus on how to get 4.2 out.
>>> 
>>> Marcus has a binding -1, so that means the vote fails and we need
>> another RC (unless someone challenges Marcus's veto and he changes his
>> mind).
>>> 
> [Animesh>] Sebastien the VOTE is by majority not a VETO. 

Ah, thought it was consensus.

should be consensus for releases imho.

> 
>>> So what needs to be in the RC (aside from the cherry pick mentioned by
>> Marcus).
>>> Are there more blockers ?
>>> Do we need to invest in more testing before cutting that new RC or is
>> it just that one cherry pick ?
>>> 
>>> If we agree on that and test before cutting, then maybe the vote can
>>> pass :)
>>> 
>>> -sebastien
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Why can't we cover every use case, Marcus. We will need help from
>>>> users, but if they do help it will be easy to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Marcus Sorensen
>> <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I was actually talking about separate things in relation to this
>>>>> thread and the other where I mentioned that I'd like to see a
>>>>> release focused on bugfixing and testing. With that, I'm advocating
>>>>> a test for every api call and focusing on broadening use case test
>> coverage.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here, I'm simply talking about taking the support matrix and doing
>>>>> some vary basic testing. This can be a dozen or so tests, each
>>>>> platform we say we support needs to successfully deploy a zone and a
>>>>> vm on every storage type that is in the support matrix. I don't
>>>>> think this would include plugins (or maybe those are left to the
>>>>> developer of the third party plugin). For KVM, this is literally a
>>>>> marvin script away from being there, I don't think there's a ton of
>>>>> work. I have no idea what we have or can do with vmware, and I'm
>>>>> guessing Xen is largely covered already.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We'll never be able to cover every use case, I may be able to deploy
>>>>> a zone with my KVM setup, but not someone else's special network
>> layout.
>>>>> I'd just like to see sanity checks to say it works, at all, on the
>>>>> handful of 'supported' systems.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Do we have any statistics that say how many of our customers are
>>>>>> using feature x, feature y, etc.?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If not, I would say if we know about a feature that has regressed
>>>>>> to the point of breakage in 4.2 that it should be fixed before
>>>>>> releasing (or at the very least well documented, so - if it is
>>>>>> impactful to someone - they do not upgrade until it has been
>> fixed).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>>>>>> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think that Animesh is trying to stress what is "key". If it
hits
>>>>>>> 1% of cloud operators is it key?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 9/9/13 7:42 AM, "Simon Weller" <sweller@ena.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -1 from me as well.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I know we're trying to hit timed releases, but I think it's
very
>>>>>>>> important to preserve key underlying functionality across
>>>>>>>> releases. If a supported and documented feature is known
to be
>>>>>>>> broken, we need to address it...if we don't, it's going to
cause
>>>>>>>> lots of pain, and reflect badly on ACS as a project.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 9:24:23 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:40:30AM -0600, Marcus Sorensen
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -1 ... sorry guys, especially with Simon chiming in.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'd request f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9
be cherry-
>> picked.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm -1, given simon's perspective as well. Since we have
the fix,
>>>>>>>> let's get it into the release.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *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>
>>>>>> *(tm)*
>>> 


Mime
View raw message