cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "marco@exoscale.ch" <ma...@exoscale.ch>
Subject Re: 4.9+ release
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:48:27 GMT
Hi,

From my CS starter point of view, I agree with John's comment. I would really like to see
the next major version with a code & architecture clean-up, especially producing a code
architecture in the direction of the Java9 Jigsaw modularity. It would be sad not to take
the next specifications into account.
For the dates, it's good to produce periodically a new release for the 4.X but I don't see
how putting one on the first 5.x version can be done before defining what will be it.

Marco

-- To introduce myself, I joined Exoscale a few months ago to work on CS code base to suit
their needs.


> On 15 Jun 2016, at 11:31, 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
>> 


Mime
View raw message