Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of runseb@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
From: Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEABE7DD.47BAA%abhinandan.prateek@citrix.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00:35 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4F20CD79-FF39-46B1-B2B7-4BFB1D763DDD@gmail.com>
References: <CEABE7DD.47BAA%abhinandan.prateek@citrix.com>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org


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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>=20
> 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.

>=20
> 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?)
>=20

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...

>=20
> -abhi
>=20
>=20
> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> 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)?
>>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>> is what the hurry is about
>>=20
>> Daan
>>=20
>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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 ?
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>=20
>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>=20
>>> -sebastien
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <runseb@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> etc=A9then test=A9.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>> <radhika.puthiyetath@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =3D
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> =
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack-docs.git;a=3Dtree;
>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>> =3Dre
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> =
lease-notes;h=3D8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=3Drefs/heads/
>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>=20
>=20