Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
From: Koushik Das <koushik.das@citrix.com>
To: "<dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Thread-Topic: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Thread-Index: 
 AdDLo5se4y2aPodGQ9OfaLhpCBISgQABJhnQ//+oWACAACD4AIAAFmWAgAALPICAAJgrgIADO4SAgACdEACAAAZIgIAAGigAgAAB7AD//o0FAIACb1wA//8iwICAAYAPgIAAh4gA
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:14:35 +0000
Message-ID: <C35A3376-DF7D-4A70-86D8-5E722A4ACBD9@citrix.com>
References: <62852B62-345F-4C31-BCF7-296D28A92E66@citrix.com>
 <BC047208AFA8C3429141743ADC8C561D757AA13F@FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxvZMweDwddBJstF9jt7pocvAVYMNc6=QTb9dkGyrtDHU7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <BC047208AFA8C3429141743ADC8C561D757AA4AC@FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxvbiBJnLJ+nq4YVEu9sdfV0wOqGcHEpWMnD8Kv4Nm_VmBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BC047208AFA8C3429141743ADC8C561D757AA611@FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxvYW_YUe6Yk2HFCOcZg8J3dFNFUz_he-WDJ+Ot+gft6HOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQtxvb17=m3drJN50dqTH4+VEd47Js=qUPnchQyuayPKpugZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BC047208AFA8C3429141743ADC8C561D757ADE28@FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxva5x0dMPiO8dUF=oM49FvUpGsOqnPfRyDLmi0uwEsMiKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BC047208AFA8C3429141743ADC8C561D757AE509@FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxvahL1jX7KBnZbjHK37FFUtkAQ1AzkqZUAOBBdovoGXu0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7E9D707CAD9A7442ABA390580E164DD10546D516@SINPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxva=-sAVx+gfQK95D6tmZK2ABOyQex4-c7s=Lax7pA9q3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7E9D707CAD9A7442ABA390580E164DD10546DAF3@SINPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
 <CAGQtxva90ish=TkYf18o5SLfztaT+iHZovrdw6tDzXDQ8SUWGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGQtxva90ish=TkYf18o5SLfztaT+iHZovrdw6tDzXDQ8SUWGg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <85A5D02E0B520749B95B720C29C1962B@citrix.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

If there is a group of users in dire need for a specific feature they can a=
lways take the code and use it. No need to wait for an official release. Of=
ficial release should adhere to quality guidelines (at least in terms of an=
y reported regressions) even if it means release getting delayed.


On 05-Aug-2015, at 2:39 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes we can if there is a group of users that don't use it but are in
> dire need far another feature. We just have to document and market it
> properly
>=20
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Ramanath Katru
> <ramanath.katru@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Daan,
>>=20
>> I beg to differ. This is very much a product issue. We cannot knowingly =
release with an existing/working functionality broken. Especially if it is =
one of the features that users expect to be there. Remote Access VPN is an =
example. Right now this functionality is broken.
>>=20
>> Ram Katru
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:57 PM
>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>>=20
>> Ram,
>>=20
>> This is a marketing issue, not a release issue. making a release or mark=
eting it to the general public are two different things.
>>=20
>> Daan
>>=20
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Ramanath Katru <ramanath.katru@citrix.c=
om> wrote:
>>> While we can say if a bug doesn=92t effect "majority" of current users,=
 we can go ahead and release, but we should also look at a product perspect=
ive not just release perspective. There are some features that are importan=
t for cloudstack as a product and these cannot be broken in a release. If w=
e do not evaluate from a product perspective, then we will be turning poten=
tial new users away.
>>>=20
>>> Ram Katru
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:54 AM
>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>>>=20
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Somesh Naidu
>>> <Somesh.Naidu@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> I would like to add that while the # of users affected is definitely
>>>> a major factor when ascertaining severity of an issue, should we not
>>>> consider the technical scope and/or use-case of a defect. For
>>>> example, let's say there is only one user using basic zone setup with
>>>> VMware in the community but the bug/regression has caused a major
>>>> failure like "No provisioning of VMs". Would this be considered a rele=
ase blocker?
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> This is exactly the kind of discussion we need to have when such a case=
 comes by. For this as purely hypothetical case I would say, release. We ca=
n not have other users abstain from badly needed features because one can n=
ot share in the joy. We would have to release a fix for this afterwards.
>>>=20
>>> just a 0.02 in virtual currency
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> Daan
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Daan