cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Date Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:39:51 GMT
×2

mobile biligual spell checker used
Op 15 nov. 2013 15:27 schreef "Chip Childers" <chipchilders@apache.org>:

> IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes
> document under control.  I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for
> this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate.
>
> Another thought to remind folks about in this thread:
>
> Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in
> the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote.
>
> Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release
> vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs
> should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before*
> announcing 4.2.1.
>
> Make sense?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> <Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
> > CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
> > Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
> >
> > -abhi
> >
> > On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Abihnandan,
> >>
> >>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
> >>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
> >>be prepended in more readable form afaic.
> >>
> >>Daan
> >>
> >>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
> >><Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I
> will
> >>> list down some important fixes.
> >>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
> >>>
> >>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
> >>> important ones.
> >>>
> >>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -abhi
> >>>
> >>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
> >>><Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
> >>>>Not
> >>>>make a release)
> >>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
> >>>>of
> >>>>acceptable quality.
> >>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
> >>>>
> >>>>-abhi
> >>>>
> >>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>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=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>tr
> >>>>>>>>>>>>e
> >>>>>>>>>>>>e;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> f
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =re
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
> >>>>>>>>>>>>ea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>s/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message