cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebgoa <run...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 4.6
Date Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:28:10 GMT

On Jun 22, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Rafael Fonseca <rsafonseca@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Rafael, let me copy Pierre-Yves who talked about this new packaging.

I don't think we should try to put it in 4.6.0, it's too big of change, and should really
be part of a larger discussion on re-packaging/re-architecture of several things.

Hopefully Pyr can chime in.

-sebastien

> 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
View raw message