cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2017 05:14:05 GMT
We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people
actively participating in the release process.

We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in.
We, very clearly do not have enough people working on
releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases
or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs
open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to
test.

I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on
them actively.

We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to
be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long
discussions on this list.

Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont
change the current situation.

We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code.
principles and theory wont help.

Thanks,

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner
(rafaelweingartner@gmail.com) wrote:

+1 to what Paul said.
IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a
version, all
merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs
that address
specific problems in the RC.
I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for
this
version, we have not followed it?

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus
<paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

Hi All,

>From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own
downfall. Once
a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements
should be going
in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for
the blockers
should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next
one can get
going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd
probably be on
4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the
new fixes in.

People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not
making the
product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see
here.

Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.angus@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue

-----Original Message-----
From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3

I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve
discussed
in the past is that overall community participation in the RC
process has
dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the
community as a
whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on
testing the RC
and releasing it).

I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first
RC, we need
to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to
stabilize
it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests
that ran
against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our
automated
test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so.

As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text
changes)
PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a
new branch
for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code
related to
blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before).

What do people think?

On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
wrote:

this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release
branch
only and merge forward

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens <
williamstevens@gmail.com> wrote:

I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but
are

not

blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately

results in a

longer RC process.

It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well.

On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <rajani@apache.org>

wrote:

Thanks Mike,

Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you.

Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect
of taking more than three months in the RC phase :(

Thanks,

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:

Hi everyone,

I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related
tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like
to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on
the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within
24 hours).

Thanks!
Mike

On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl>
wrote:

Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike"

<Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>:

Hi,

I opened a PR against the most recent RC:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141

I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they

pass (as noted in detail in the PR).

If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from

it, I’m +1 on the new RC as long as this is the only commit
addedto it since the current RC.

Thanks Mike!

If this PR is good we should probably merge it asap and go for
RC5.

4.10 should really be released by now.

Wido

Thanks!
Mike

On 6/9/17, 7:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike"

<Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:

Hi everyone,

I found a critical issue that was introduced into this RC

since the most recent RC, so I am -1 on this RC.

The fix for this ticket breaks the support for storing volume

snapshots on primary storage (which is a feature managed
storagecan support):

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9685

Here is the SHA: 336df84f1787de962a67d0a34551f9027303040e

At a high level, what it does is remove a row from the

cloud.snapshot_store_ref table when a volume is deleted that
hasone or more volume snapshots.

This is fine for non-managed (traditional) storage; however,

managed storage can store volume snapshots on primary storage,
soremoving this row breaks that functionality.

I can fix the problem that this commit introduced by looking

at the primary storage that supports the volume snapshot
andchecking the following: 1) Is this managed storage? 2) If yes,
is
the snapshot in question stored on that primary storage?

The problem is I will be out of the office for a couple weeks

and will not be able to address this until I return.

We could revert the commit, but I still will not have time to

run the managed-storage regression test suite until I return.

On a side note, it looks like this commit was introduced since

the most recent RC. I would argue that it was not a blocker
andshould not have been placed into the new RC. We (as a
community)
tend to have a lot of code go in between RCs and that just
increases the chances of introducing critical issues and thus
delaying the release. We’ve gotten better at this over the
years,
but we should focus more on only allowing the entry of new code
into a follow-on RC that is critical (or so trivial as to not at
all be likely to introduce any problems…like fixing an error
message).

Thanks for your efforts on this, everyone!
Mike

On 6/9/17, 8:52 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike"

<Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:

Hi Rajani,

I will see if I can get all of my managed-storage testing

(both automated and manual) done today. If not, we’ll need to
seeif someone else can complete it before we OK this RC as I
won’t
be back in the office for a couple weeks. I’ll report back later
today.

Thanks,
Mike

On 6/9/17, 2:34 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <rajani@apache.org>

wrote:

Yup. thats right. I dont know how it happened but, it created
from the previous RC commit. The script is supposed to do a

git

pull. I didn't notice any failures. Not sure what went wrong.

Thanks for finding it mike. I am creating RC4 now and

cancelling

this.

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:

Hi Rajani,

I don’t see the following PR in this RC:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098

I ran all of my managed-storage regression tests. They all
passed with the exception of the one that led to PR 2098.

As I examine the RC in a bit more detail, it sits on top of
ed2f573, but I think it should sit on top of ed376fc.

As a result, I am -1 on the RC.

It takes me about a day to run all of the managed-storage
regression tests and I am out of the office for the next

couple

weeks, so I’d really like to avoid another RC until I’m back

and

able to test the next RC.

Thanks!
Mike

On 6/7/17, 4:36 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <rajani@apache.org>

wrote:

Hi All,

I've created 4.10.0.0 release with the following artifacts up
for a vote:

Git Branch and Commit SH:

https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27

Commit:a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170607T1407

Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/

SystemVm Templates:
http://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.10/RC3/

PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS

Vote will be open for 72 hours.

For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be

sure

to indicate
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

Thanks,
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

--
Daan

--
Rafael Weingärtner
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message