cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
Date Fri, 30 Jun 2017 19:12:59 GMT
On 30/06/2017 2:19 PM, Alex Hitchins wrote:
> Releasing against a defined reference rig would be a very good idea, especially if we
could replicate several.
>
> It concerns me slightly that we are building a platform we want to promote people to
deploy in enterprise environments with the caveat 'run at your own risk'.
There is no choice as near as I can tell.
It seems that there are too many combinations of hardware, network 
configurations and OSs to guarantee that a release will work on all of 
them and still get a release delivered.
As Will pointed out, the Release Team does not have access to every 
combination where previous releases are in production use, to test the 
new release candidate.

Currently it may be  not very explicit about what are the fully tested 
configurations and from what Will said, I gather that there is no policy 
saying what the minimum test set is to declare a release ready to go.

There is no reason preventing a release being tested after release by an 
end-user or a developer and adding to the release documentation 
something to the effect that "Users have reported that this release has 
been put into production on XYZ configuration with no modifications." 
This at least gets the release out the door for the 95% of the users 
that do not have an XYZ rather than waiting for someone with an XYZ to 
find time to test it.

It may also encourage companies using or selling XYZs to put up some 
resources (hardware and people) dedicated to testing so that they get 
into the initial release.

Ron

>
> We need to up our game.
>
> 'We' he says, after two years MIA!
>
>> On 30 Jun 2017, at 18:41, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>>
>> How much time is there between a feature freeze and the RC being cut.?
>> Do people know far enough in advance that their feature is in or out and if in must
be ready to go to a RC release by such and such a date?
>>
>> Is the use case testing well defined - hardware, configurations, etc.
>> Can you put out a release that says: "This release has been tested on these configurations
(A, B ,C) but the following configurations/use cases are not yet fully tested and other configuration
may be used at your own risk after your own internal tests have been run successfully."
>> Is there any concept that "Cloudstack is verified to run on the following configurations
and should also run on these configurations but has not been tested fully. It may run on these
configurations but is not tested during the release cycle."
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> On 30/06/2017 1:14 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
>>> Have not looked at Release Tsar, but worth checking out.
>>>
>>> In general, the biggest problem we have with releasing on a schedule is the
>>> lack of a CI setup which covers the entire software. Or at least a
>>> 'supported' set of features. This means that the release is always bound to
>>> a bunch of volunteers getting around to testing their use case. Solidfire
>>> and Nuage are pretty good about getting some CI run on some pieces.
>>> Trillian is great for covering a portion of the tests, but it currently
>>> does not cover the whole software use case. We also need more trillian
>>> deployments in the wild to support the CI initiative.
>>>
>>> We do need to be stricter about nothing going in after an RC is cut but
>>> blockers. The limited CI coverage and the dependence on a few people for
>>> testing exasperates this problem.
>>>
>>> So there is multiple layers to this. I think someone dedicates to the RM
>>> role would help this a lot because they would have a single community focus
>>> mandate, so it is in their best interest to implement a flow which does not
>>> inhibit their ability to deliver on their mandate.
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2017 12:53 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps a Release Tsar would be a better solution.
>>>> The RM needs to have absolute control over what is in or out.
>>>> Reasonable discussion allowed and then a decision once the RM feels that
>>>> the case has been fully explored and that a positive vote is expected.
>>>>
>>>> The importance on meeting deadlines needs to have a higher priority. If a
>>>> feature/fix can not meet the quality/testing threshold on time then it gets
>>>> dropped from the RC and scheduled for the next release.
>>>>
>>>> A few cycles of a bit of ruthlessness should get everyone`s intention and
>>>> shorten the release cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Meeting release schedules would also reduce the pain of a feature being
>>>> deferred.
>>>> According to the schedule proposed last year,(https://cwiki.apache.org
>>>> /confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+2016-2017+
>>>> Release+Cycle+and+Calendar)
>>>>   Cloudstack 4.9.10 (LTS) , 5.04.0 (LTS) as well as 5.1.3.0 (maintenance)
>>>> 5.2.1.0 (Maintenance) were released June 2017.
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+Procedure
>>>> seems to be pretty reasonable. The RM probably needs to moderate the vote
>>>> and explain what -1 votes mean to product credibility if they delay the
>>>> release. Negative votes because someone`s new feature did not make it
>>>> should be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/06/2017 12:09 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We could probably split this topic down also....
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I may have mentioned previously 😊 my view on how we have
>>>>> somewhat shot ourselves in the foot with the release process this time
>>>>> around.  I think that for the most part, people have been well intentioned,
>>>>> and have been trying to 'make this release as good as possible' which
is
>>>>> counter-productive, as it's been introducing new blockers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure we have a problem in our 'loosely-agreed' process, it's
just
>>>>> that repeatedly people have ignored it.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRT a full-time release manager, I suspect that they would find that
"you
>>>>> can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".  They would
not be
>>>>> able to compel anyone to 'hurry up and fix that bug you created', although
>>>>> I guess maybe they could pull a feature if the author(s) didn't sort
it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because ultimately a release manager, paid or otherwise should only be
>>>>> doing what the 'community' decides the release manager's role is.  So
we
>>>>> need to be clear about how we want releases to work before worrying about
>>>>> who manages that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Angus
>>>>>
>>>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:alex@alexhitchins.com]
>>>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 15:05
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in complete agreement with you. Also on your other reply regards
to
>>>>> a FT release manager.
>>>>>
>>>>> If 'we' don't go down this line, more and more people will follow the
>>>>> Cosmic/Schuberg Philis path or even use Cosmic instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm encouraged by your response. Sounds like a few others hold the same
>>>>> concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexander Hitchins
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> E: alex@alexhitchins.com
>>>>> W: alexhitchins.com
>>>>> M: 07788 423 969
>>>>> T: 01892 523 587
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstevens@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 14:54
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Schuberg Philis, a very active community member forked Cosmic off
of
>>>>> CloudStack and has been developing their fork for their needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think we need to have a more consistent front on this matter. I
>>>>> think it would make a big difference on the quality, release cadence
and
>>>>> perception of the project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2017 9:48 AM, "Alex Hitchins" <alex@alexhitchins.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Will,
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand it's something that comes with a big bag of troublesome
>>>>> worries.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this topic comes up again in any discussions, I'd be interested to
>>>>> hear their thoughts on what I see as the alternative; without a dedicated
>>>>> RM/PM/Captain, people will fork off CS so they can achieve the same thing,
>>>>> and CS ultimately looses out long term. I can't remember the name of
the
>>>>> fork, but I think I'm right that a previous large CS contributor/user
>>>>> forked off as they wanted greater management in the areas we are discussing
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexander Hitchins
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> E: alex@alexhitchins.com
>>>>> W: alexhitchins.com
>>>>> M: 07788 423 969
>>>>> T: 01892 523 587
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstevens@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 14:31
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
>>>>>
>>>>> Apache has been historically against the idea of a cloudstack foundation
>>>>> and there is a bit of a pandoras box there which we will want to be careful
>>>>> about opening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apache added direct contribution, but it was unusable for us historically
>>>>> because it required a minimum contribution of 50k, which none of us can
>>>>> afford. However, there have been some changes to the board recently which
>>>>> are in our favour if we want to put pressure to lower that to say 5-10k.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if we do solve for smaller direct contributions, we will have to
>>>>> jump through hoops to be able to use those funds for a dedicated release
>>>>> manager. I do think this is a possibility if we manage our needs and
>>>>> communications very well. I had some preliminary discussions with some
>>>>> apache foundation folks to express these specific concerns. I played
off
>>>>> the fact that i know they dont want to entertain a cloudstack foundation
>>>>> and tried to see if i could get them to move on the direct contribution
>>>>> mechanism to make it usable for us, specifically with the goal of hiring
a
>>>>> full time release manager. I definitely had their ear and they acknowledged
>>>>> the problems we are facing (and currently discussing).  They expressed
>>>>> concerns about being able to hire someone with the direct contributions,
>>>>> but brainstormed a bit to potentially hire an agency who actually does
the
>>>>> hire and they pay the persons salary through the agency with the direct
>>>>> contribution funds.
>>>>>
>>>>> All to say, there are potential options here, but there be dragons, so
we
>>>>> have to handle this topic with care.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2017 9:12 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html says:
>>>>>> "If you have a specific target or project that you wish to directly
>>>>>> support, pleasecontact us <https://www.apache.org/founda
>>>>>> tion/contributing.html#Fundraising>and we will do our best to
satisfy
>>>>>> your wishes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Is Apache willing to allow projects to set up their own
>>>>>> foundations? I doubt but someone would need to check this out.
>>>>>> Does the PMC have the project charter or the agreement that was signed
>>>>>> when Cloudstack moved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Has anyone tried to contact Apache about directing support to
>>>>>> Cloudstack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not convinced that lack of paid staff is the issue.
>>>>>> This discussion reminded me of this.
>>>>>> Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb ?
>>>>>> A: Only one, but the lightbulb must want to change
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lightbulbjokes.com/directory/p.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/06/2017 6:48 AM, Alex Hitchins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per Giles's comment to the previous thread, I thought I would
>>>>>>> start a discussion on the subject to canvas peoples thoughts,
>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and fears.
>>>>>> My question for discussion, is there is any mileage in someone
>>>>>>> creating a "CloudStack Foundation" as a non-profit entity, funded
>>>>>>> largely by key CloudStack players with the sole function of employing
>>>>>>> dedicated resource (part or full time) to handle all releases
and
>>>>>>> other essential 'back office' functions. The idea being it's
in
>>>>>>> everyone's interest to chip in a little each to fund core project
and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> release management.
>>>>>> The idea might be utterly irrelevant, pointless and/or straight up
daft.
>>>>>>> I urge you all to let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something for you all to think over this weekend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alexander Hitchins
>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>> E: alex@alexhitchins.com
>>>>>>> W: alexhitchins.com
>>>>>>> M: 07788 423 969
>>>>>>> T: 01892 523 587
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sirett@shapeblue.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 09:51
>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>> This thread seems to have turned into 2 quite different discussions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The use (or not) of Jira - which was the original discussion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Ways/means of encouraging (and paying for more structured
>>>>>>> contributors)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that it could be argued that these are related. Could
I
>>>>>>> suggest opening up a thread on "release and project management
and
>>>>>>> funding it"  and keeping this thread to the original discussion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I will weigh in on both of these at some stage)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>> Giles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> giles.sirett@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:alex@alexhitchins.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: 29 June 2017 18:49
>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible
to
>>>>>>> market it as enterprise ready.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know we all know this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the
same
>>>>>>> issue, what is the best way to gather experience of these projects?
>>>>>>> See how they handle these growing pains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from
>>>>>>> cloudstack seems a good way forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another tuppence, this is getting expensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler
>>>>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
>>>>>>>> I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC
members
>>>>>>>> are funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to
work on
>>>>>>>> Cloudstack during company time) which is often the way that
Apache
>>>>>>>> projects get staffed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by
a company
>>>>>>>> to fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to
do or not
>>>>>>>> do something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture
that is
>>>>>>>> good for the project.
>>>>>>>> That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a
roadmap,
>>>>>>>> and maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working
on
>>>>>>>> Cloudstack and it appears to have a very strong and valuable
code-base.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers'
>>>>>>>> ability to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for
market
>>>>>>>> share and acceptance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should
be
>>>>>>>> treated like a product?
>>>>>>>> - sufficient functionality to compete
>>>>>>>> - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
>>>>>>>> - production reliability and stability
>>>>>>>> - business model for supporting companies to justify their
continued
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This may not require more effort but requires different policies
and
>>>>>>>> different activities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
>>>>>>>> - This change can not be included in this release because
it will
>>>>>>>> delay the release.
>>>>>>>> - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
>>>>>>>> - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because
it is
>>>>>>>> too late to test it and fix the docs.
>>>>>>>> - This fix breaks the docs
>>>>>>>> - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the core group want to make it a competitive product
or is it
>>>>>>>> sufficient for the interested players to continue in its
current form?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this,
but assuming
>>>>>>>>> it does, fine...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack
has
>>>>>>>>> zero funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or
a release
>>>>>>>>> manager or someone whose job it is to maintain documentation.
I
>>>>>>>>> have been trying to find a way to, at the very least,
fund a full
>>>>>>>>> time release manager who can focus 100% on the project.
As the
>>>>>>>>> release manager for 4.9, I know it is a full time job.
I did my
>>>>>>>>> best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay on
top of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their
time. They
>>>>>>>>> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every one
is doing their
>>>>>>>>> best with the little time they can take away from their
day job or
>>>>>>>>> their family life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps,
but
>>>>>>>>> without a solid CI infrastructure backing the project
and improved
>>>>>>>>> testing and automation, we will always struggles with
release
>>>>>>>>> schedules and such.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have been involved in this project long enough to know
that all
>>>>>>>>> the problems you point out exist, but they are also not
easily solved.
>>>>>>>>> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have
and take
>>>>>>>>> small steps towards improvement, but we also have to
be realistic
>>>>>>>>> with our expectations because we are counting on people's
>>>>>>>>> generosity to move them forward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process
will lead to
>>>>>>>>> more contribution because there is less barriers to entry.
This one
>>>>>>>>> reason why I struggle to see the value in Jira as it
is used today.
>>>>>>>>> I personally don't understand what value it is giving
us that the
>>>>>>>>> github PRs and Issues don't solve.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will remain open minded and will follow along with
what people
>>>>>>>>> think is best, but I think it is worth understanding
what we are
>>>>>>>>> trying to solve for and simplify our approach in solving
it so we
>>>>>>>>> can get better systems in place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler"
>>>>>>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby
rather than a
>>>>>>>>>> project or a production quality product.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this
affect the
>>>>>>>>>> release schedule?
>>>>>>>>>> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap
(of which
>>>>>>>>>> there seem to be many) of releases?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is a system admin that is not part of the project
supposed to
>>>>>>>>>> plan for upgrade windows?
>>>>>>>>>> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release
will be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> available?
>>>>>> How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain
>>>>>>>>>> quality and consistency, reject changes that hurt
the overall
>>>>>>>>>> vision or add too much complexity?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone
did, how
>>>>>>>>>> would they stop undocumented features or features
that contradict
>>>>>>>>>> the documentation from being incorporated?
>>>>>>>>>> Who makes sure that the documentation is correct
at the time of
>>>>>>>>>> the release?
>>>>>>>>>> Release notes are not much help for someone doing
a new install or
>>>>>>>>>> evaluating Cloudstack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters
a
>>>>>>>>>> problem know that it has been fixed already in the
next release?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment
on a proposed
>>>>>>>>>> change before it gets coded?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA,
is there a
>>>>>>>>>> definition of a minor fix that does not require a
JIRA?
>>>>>>>>>> - does not change functionality?
>>>>>>>>>> - only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception
that is
>>>>>>>>>> not properly handled?
>>>>>>>>>> - only improves code readability or future extensibility?
>>>>>>>>>> - does not affect documentation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support
do have
>>>>>>>>>> strong management.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are other examples where great Apache software
is failing to
>>>>>>>>>> get recognized because the PMC is not paying attention
to the
>>>>>>>>>> product management side of things.
>>>>>>>>>> I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product
with a strong
>>>>>>>>>> technical team supporting it.
>>>>>>>>>> It has very little following because the documentation
and
>>>>>>>>>> marketing collateral is very poor.
>>>>>>>>>> It gets by because the audience for it is largely
software
>>>>>>>>>> developers who can read code and can test features
to work out the
>>>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>>>> It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention
to the
>>>>>>>>>> product management side of the project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately
this
>>>>>>>>>> takes effort and some discipline.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs
for that
>>>>>>>>>>> communication? Can we not use issues in github
now instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> jira if someone needs to open an issue but does
not yet have code
>>>>>>>>>>> to contribute. If not, jira could still be used
for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think duplicating data between jira and the
PR is kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> pointless. I feel like the github PRs and the
cide going in
>>>>>>>>>>> should be the source of truth, not a random third
party tool.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to
generate the release
>>>>>>>>>>> notes from the PRs merged in that release. I
think that is easier
>>>>>>>>>>> and more accurate than depending on jira since
it does not track
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual code tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thats my 0.02$.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus" <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack
back.
>>>>>>>>>>> It stops users/operators from having any chance
of understanding
>>>>>>>>>>> what CloudStack does and how it does it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>> Jira is about communication between developers
and to everyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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: 29 June 2017 10:14
>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>>>>>>> <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + Release notes will be impossible to create
without a proper
>>>>>>>>>>> + Jira
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be
base on the code
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> hence on git, not jira. I do not appose to the
use of Jira but it
>>>>>>>>>>> is not required for good coding practices and
as we are not and
>>>>>>>>>>> will not function as a corporation, jira is an
extra for those
>>>>>>>>>>> that grave for it. not a requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> -- 
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>

-- 
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102


Mime
View raw message