cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@accelerite.com>
Subject Re: 4.9+ release
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:36:25 GMT
Hi,

As we are planning/discussing the releases, any plan around the PRs in Open state? - there
are about 147 in Open state and oldest of these goes back to Jun 2015.  
1) Can we look at giving extra time to committers to push these PRs ?  
2) Can we make exception to committing Test PRs even if the branch is locked such that we
can get better coverage/passrate and help the CI Runs? Also, as you know, the test code does
not impact anything on the product feature/functionality.

best,
Raja
Senior Manager, Product Development
Accelerite, www.accelerite.com, @Accelerite 
2055, Laurelwood Rd, Santa Clara, CA, 95054
Phone: 1-408-216-7010 

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Rajani,
>> 
>> By the rules of semantic versioning (which we follow), incrementing the
>> major version should only occur if there there is a change that breaks
>> backwards compatibility of the API, removes support for a integrated
>> component, or otherwise reduces/removes existing functionality.
> 
> 
> my question was to check if anyone is working on such a change. Based on
> the replies, I think its a NO.
> 
> 
>> Assuming we targeting late August 2016 for the next release, it is a bit
>> short notice to introduce such changes.  Therefore, the next release should
>> be 4.10.
>> 
> My opinions is, its never too late. Since no one is working on any such
> feature, we need not get into that discussion now.
> 
>> 
>> I have opened a discussion to determine if/when we should have a 5.0.0
>> release in order to provide developers and users with sufficient notice for
>> such significant changes.
>> 
> The challenge is to find out who is doing the hard work for such features.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rajani
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>> 
>>> 
>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:31 AM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I like this discussion. But, my original question was not about what
>> should
>>> the next release number be?
>>> 
>>> i was checking if anyone working on anything big and hence want the next
>>> release to be 5.0?
>>> 
>>> ~Rajani
>>> 
>>> <http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> maybe I should have answered here instead of the other thread :S
>>>> 
>>>> I am all with John on this. I can not judge the dates but the overall
>> ideas
>>>> are spot on.
>>>> 
>>>> I now see the API weren't mentioned in this thread I think they should.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:53 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree and support John's comments below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> ilya
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/14/16 2:44 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Completely agree with Daan.  Per semantic versioning, a major revision
>>>>> increase must introduce a backwards incompatible change in the public
>>>> API,
>>>>> removal of one of more supported devices, reduction in the list of
>>>>> supported distributions.  I agree that when we require Java8+, drop
>>>> Ubuntu
>>>>> 12.04 support, drop support for an old hypervisor version, etc,  we
>> will
>>>>> need to increment the major revision to reflect the fact that the
>> release
>>>>> is not backwards compatible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For 4.10 and LTS 4.9.0_1, I see it as critical that we support running
>>>>> on either Java7 or Java8.  In particular, producing an LTS release that
>>>>> only supports a JVM that has been unsupported for nearly 18 months
>> would
>>>>> make it DOA in many shops.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It seems like it would make sense to have a 5.0.0 release that removed
>>>>> support for a number of legacy components (e.g. Xen 6.0 possibly 6.2,
>>>>> Java7, CentOS 5, etc), as well as, internal improvements (e.g.
>> simplified
>>>>> configuration).  The focus of this release would be to reduce the
>>>> footprint
>>>>> of codebase, as well as, make a set of backwards incompatible changes
>>>> that
>>>>> further decouples plugins from core.  We would then plan for a 6.0.0
in
>>>>> 4Q2017 to introduce further architectural changes and API revisions.
>> The
>>>>> advantage to this approach is that it breaks up the large refactorings
>>>> and
>>>>> architectural design changes — allowing us to gain velocity by removing
>>>>> legacy components, reducing the risk of these changes, and providing
>> user
>>>>> benefit earlier.  Based on the release plan I previously proposed we
>> have
>>>>> the following releases remaining in 2016 and in early 2017:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016
>>>>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016
>>>>>> * 4.12 releasing on or about 18 December 2016
>>>>>> * 4.13 release on or about 5 February 2017
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4.12 seems to be the sweet spot in the schedule to cut the 5.0.0
>>>> release
>>>>> described above.  It would give us sometime to plan and gain consensus
>>>>> around the changes in both the user and dev communities.  It would also
>>>>> allow the second LTS release to be based on 5.0.0 — allowing both
>> release
>>>>> cycles to take advantage of the reduced support requirements and Java8
>>>>> language features. Based on this proposal, the releases above would
>>>> change
>>>>> to the following:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016
>>>>>> * 4.11 releasing on or about 23 October 2016
>>>>>> * 5.0.0 releasing on or about 18 December 2016
>>>>>> * 5.1.0 release on or about 5 February 2017
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am in the process of moving my proposal into the wiki.  If this
>>>>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there, and open a thread to
>>>>> discuss 5.0.0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1 Daan.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My recollection was that major version number changes were only
to be
>>>>> triggered by breaks in backward compatibility (API).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Paul Angus
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2016 14:47
>>>>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: 4.9+ release
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You know that would require more then one byte for our minor
version,
>>>>> Will.
>>>>>>> I would be very pleased to go to 5.0 before that time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com
>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Daan is just trying to get us to version 4.256.  :P
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>>>>>>> Lead Developer
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com
*|*
>>>> tw
>>>>>>>> @CloudOps_
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -1 to what Wido said. None of those points warant a major
release
>>>>>>>>> number upgrade. these should all be in 4.10, -.11, -12
etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> major incompatibilities like API refactor, dropping backend
support
>>>>>>>>> for this or that hyporvisor or DB refactor are the things
that
>>>>>>>>> warrant 5.0, IMNSHO
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Will Stevens
>>>>>>>>> <williamstevens@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> +1. :)
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2016 5:07 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14 juni 2016 om 10:55 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<
>>>>>>>> rajani@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.10 or 5.0?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 4.10
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long
time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to check if anyone is planning
on major changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> warrants
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 5.0 should imho be:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8
>>>>>>>>>>> - Ubuntu 16.04 / systemd support
>>>>>>>>>>> - Drop support for older libvirt versions (KVM)
>>>>>>>>>>> - Some killer feature(s)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Wido
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Rajani
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>> 
>> 
>> 




DISCLAIMER
==========
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite,
a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent
Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Mime
View raw message