cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Fonseca <rsafons...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 4.6
Date Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:21:37 GMT
Hi guys,

I plan on getting started on dissecting the embedded Tomcat/Jetty PR this
week, it would be nice to get it into 4.6.0, since it's quite a change in
functional packaging to do it in a minor like 4.6.1 (documentation wise and
stuff), and i guess 4.7.0 is still far down the road.
Want to hold off on 4.6.0 until that is chopped to pieces and made easy to
review? Should be able to do it in a couple of days.
I will also remove the mysql bit for now so there are no conflicting
opinions, will revisit that issue further down the road.. as someone very
well versed in Apache licensing explained to me (thanks Leo), we can get
that done, just not by default and provide a switch to include that
functionality so that third party rpm/deb distributors (non-Apache) can use
that. This will also require some classpath changes based on that switch,
so will think about it later.
Everyone in agreement with this? I'm sure quite a few people have been
waiting on it for sometime, so would be nice to include in this release imo
:)

Cheers,
Rafael

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Funs Kessen <funs@barred.org> wrote:

> Hi Seb,
>
> Great way of wording it, and I completely agree! You should be able to
> pick up master and roll it out into production and keep running with it!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Funs
>
> > On 11 Jun 2015, at 23:43, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 6:43 PM, John Burwell <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Why are we averse to cutting a release stabilization branch?  In the
> past, we have cut release stabilization branches to ensure that the flow
> contributions was not interrupted.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > We have cut branches that way because that’s how Citrix delivers
> software. It develops on master, cuts a branch and put a QA team to work to
> stabilize and make a release.
> >
> > I believe it’s a broken model for an open source community made of
> mostly volunteers. We don’t have the luxury to QA a release branch and
> loose that effort (because it does not go back to master).
> >
> > In addition, this process has led to many regression, because there
> is/was a disconnect between the Qa team and the guys developing on master.
> Plus bad practice when bugs gets fixed. i.e we fix a bug in a release
> branch but don’t port it in master.
> >
> > That’s why we have talked about this at length for almost a year now,
> alas without resolution ( I thought we had, but your email indicates
> otherwise, too bad you did not chime in earlier).
> >
> > I am advocating for us to stabilize master and gate master. So that
> whenever we release we can do it starting from a stabilized branch. Instead
> of having to reinvest time in lengthy QA.
> >
> > I want us to be able to release at anytime, when we feel like it and as
> soon as someone says I want this fix/feature that was just merged in
> master. Right no we cannot do that.
> >
> > So yes call me crazy, I want the developers to take it onto themselves
> to keep their forks in sync with master, develop on their fork. And I want
> master to be the release branch. We will be able to build up a release
> through PR from devs with limited merge conflicts. So that we reach a point
> where master is QA at all time and we don’t loose any investment made in QA.
> >
> >
> >> For committers, it is not a big deal since they can manage their
> branches in the cloudstack repo.  However, for non-committers, this freeze
> could cause unnecessary frustration and discourage further contributions.
> >
> > A freeze means only the RMs will commit on master. any PR from anyone
> welcome and let the discussions happen on whether to merge or not…no
> frustration.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -John
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:33 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: 4.6
> >>
> >> On Jun 8, 2015, at 11:45 PM, Remi Bergsma <remi@remi.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I can jump in and work with Rohit and Daan to make 4.6 happen.
> >>>
> >>> +1 for the QA on master. It would be best if we could then all focus
> on stabilizing 4.6 aka master and wait with refactor stuff and new features
> until 4.6 is out, which is the start of 4.7.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, building new features in the mean time isn't a big
> issue, as rebasing to a master that gets more stable every day is much
> easier than it is today I'd say. You just cannot merge new stuff until 4.6
> is out.
> >>>
> >>> Let's write down some guidelines and see if this approach makes sense.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe that's something that you can do at the meetup today and bring it
> back to the list as a proposal ?
> >>
> >> When I talk about freeze I am thinking just letting the RMs commit on
> master, everyone who wants something in 4.6 should submit a PR.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Regards, Remi
> >>>
> >>>> On 08 Jun 2015, at 21:43, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> We need to freeze 4.6 asap.
> >>>>
> >>>> I originally agreed to RM 4.6 and Daan also stepped up.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I would like to work on doing a release of ec2stack and gcestack,
> so I will step down from 4.6 RM.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody wants to jump in.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is already a ton of things in 4.6 and we need to release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ideally we also need to QA directly on master, so that we can build
> 4.7 on top of a stable release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -sebastien
> >> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
> services
> >>
> >> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> >> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/
> >
> >> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> >> CloudStack Software Engineering<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> >> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> >> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> >>
> >> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any
> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please
> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a
> company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape
> Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of
> South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is
> a registered trademark.
> >
>
> —
>         =Funs
>
>

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