incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:31:40 GMT
Hi all,

So it appears that we are here:

* CLOUDSTACK-257 is resolved
* CLOUDSTACK-267 is committed to master and 4.0
* I committed a first draft CHANGES file to master (will move to 4.0
right before cutting a release, to provide time for suggestions /
comments).
* Encryption filing is prepared, but not sent (David is looking for
more comments from the community)

So I'll throw it out there again - how does everyone think we looking?
 Are there any outstanding issues / work / suggestions that we should
deal with before our first VOTE on 4.0.0?

IMO, we are ready to start the process.  I can assume silence means
that we are in a good place, and go through the process of cutting a
build / testing myself / starting a VOTE thread, but I'd love some
feedback either direction from others in the community.

-chip

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE.  With Alex headed out on
> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
> that, feel free to shout!).
>
> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week.  Perhaps
> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
> items?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
> activity on the bug to get it to closure.  Can someone please comment
> on the status of this work?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a.  Was this patch applied to
> the 4.0 branch?  If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
> be answered.  Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
> create a CHANGES file more easily?  Personally, I'm OK with getting
> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
> during the voting process.  It would have been better to have wrapped
> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
> the completed docs (and nothing else).  I think that once we get
> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>
> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
> that people want to share, please do.  I'd love to be in a position to
> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
> thread.  However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
> possible.
>
> -chip

Mime
View raw message