cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Date Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:00:35 GMT

On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:

> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs specially
> the upgrade section of it.
> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
> 
> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is good
> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs itself.
> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
> 
> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
> 
> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
> issues here.

That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions committed is bad.
Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release of the code.

> 
> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
> 

I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly. We should keep doing
that.

> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
> least till Wednesday to get these right.
> 	We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
> highly appreciated.

Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all look this with cool
heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade instructions etc...

> 
> -abhi
> 
> 
> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>> 
>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>> 
>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>> is what the hurry is about
>> 
>> Daan
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or
>>> not.
>>> 
>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is
>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What
>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>> 
>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org.  This
>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master
>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>> 
>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>> 
>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>> 
>>> -sebastien
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
>>>> during doc finalization.  If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>>> shape.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Animesh
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate
a
>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>> <radhika.puthiyetath@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
review,
>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
and
>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;
>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/
>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message