Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CEAC1B05.47C4B%abhinandan.prateek@citrix.com>
References: 
 <CAGQtxvb0v7F4hsdAm7XkeEktFW3qpEVrgE=nTefpGNQE==ByaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CEAC1B05.47C4B%abhinandan.prateek@citrix.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:27:34 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CADENRmrdByLYFSLNaYCMMNx9=eHUfvuJ-qguGn_TMqXvKfj=Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
From: Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 wil=
l
>>> 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 i=
s
>>>>>>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 wil=
l
>>>>>> 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 o=
f
>>>>>>> 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 documente=
d
>>>>>>>> (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 (explici=
t
>>>>>>>> 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 pat=
h
>>>>>>>>>>> etc=C5=A0then test=C5=A0.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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, snippet=
s
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =3D
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack-docs.git=
;a=3D
>>>>>>>>>>>>tr
>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>>> =3Dre
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=3D8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=3Dr=
efs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>