cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Date Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:37:22 GMT
Yes - it's hard to maintain, and it's yet another place to point
people to. Let's deprecate it in favor of decent RN.

--David

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org> wrote:
> 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
View raw message