Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+Y+44492t5fMcQRVO50jsHgVqo9TReWQARHLLWf8ON5Sz25aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+96GG41VOmOCjF9evXAF=m9qhQiyekC55BwF058c9v=QjKbGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+Y+4440zcfkSEY7qNB0nMPB_tSyPrXGBx7ynraeFbDu2T-hrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3862648211903198906@unknownmsgid>
	<CA+Y+44492t5fMcQRVO50jsHgVqo9TReWQARHLLWf8ON5Sz25aA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:11:30 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+96GG49ohNpXo_rKtQXyXKi79yELFoDcjVJw_ZdoR8t4BKvtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ASFCS40] New source code build available (4.0.0.beta6) for
 testing
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Noah,

I appreciate your attention to detail here, but I think you are
reading too much into these developer builds.

We agreed to use the betaX string earlier on the list, but really only
for the purpose of having a distinguishing characteristic in the file
names.  That's all they are for.  I'm actually going to stop doing
these builds anyway...  we're close to a vote on 4.0.0, and the value
they have provided is basically down to nil right now.  We can review
jenkins.cs.o artifacts for any actual bugs.

It's also not the approach we should be taking after 4.0.0.  I really
liked the way that couchdb does it, and want to spend the time to
instrument the build process similarly.  We're just not going to get
to that prior to 4.0.0, and I don't think it's critical to do it by
then.

As you've suggested previously, any VOTE thread will be started with
4.0.0 versioned build artifacts.  When / if we end up with a second,
third, fourth attempt, they will be the same version number.

Cheers!

-chip

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> Okay, thanks for the clarification. I've brought it up a few times (as you
> say) and each time it sounded like it was going to change, but then in
> another thread, a newer build pops up with it in the tarball name, so I
> keep wondering what it means. :)
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:
>
>> No, we are trying to ship 4.0.0.
>>
>> Yes, we have it documented on the wiki  (on my phone, so it's not easy
>> to search for the url right now).
>>
>> The "beta" thing is a hack, as we've discussed on several threads now.
>>
>>
>> - chip
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone.
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Chip,
>> >
>> > Just to confirm, is 4.0.0.beta6 the official version number we want to
>> ship?
>> >
>> > How will we increment this? What scheme are we using? Is it documented?
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I've posted a new build (4.0.0.beta6) here:
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~chipchilders/cloudstack/4.0/
>> >>
>> >> This code was taken from the 4.0 branch, commit
>> >> 384c03e42578f17432a483d5828aad64175d9c49.
>> >>
>> >> Please test the build using our release test procedure documented
>> >> here:
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+4.0+test+procedure
>> >>
>> >> The release was built using these instructions:
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+Procedure
>> >> Once exception is that we do not have a CHANGES file yet.  I will
>> >> have that in place prior to calling for an official vote.
>> >>
>> >> Please do take the opportunity to run through the test process (as
>> >> documented), and raise bugs if you find anything that you would
>> >> consider to be a release blocker during the actual voting process.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance...  and happy testing!
>> >>
>> >> -chip
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > NS
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS