incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edison Su <Edison...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
Date Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:20:14 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:08 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
> 
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
> wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I echo Marcus' concerns regarding the timing of such a "high touch"
> change landing in master.  We are two days before code freeze.  What 4.1.0
> features/capabilities are gained by merging javelin?  Can someone speak to
> the regression test strategy that has been employed to verify the stability of
> the changes?
> >>
> >> I proposed 2pm today (28 Jan 2013) [1] to meet on #cloudstack-meeting
> to continue our storage design conversation.
> >
> > Alex - Is it more logical to merge into master after we cut the 4.1 branch?
> >
> 
> I know this is with the benefit of hindsight - but I suspect that massive
> changes that impact large swaths of getting things done should land VERY
> early in the release cycle....otherwise they begin causing other people
> provlems. We've seen this with a number of different merges this cycle.
> Contributors essentially not knowing where to work, or being told that their
> work conflicts with work that is about to be merged (which isn't very
> welcoming or productive), or having to wait.
> 
> Perhaps in future schedules we'd have a window at the very beginning of the
> cycle for such massive changes, so that individual feature work can continue
> unabated up until freeze.
> 
> Obviously that doesn't answer the question for this release, and I think
> John's question is a good one. What benefits does 4.1 accrue from landing
> javelin at this point? Obviously after code freeze no new features get to
> make it in, so from a feature standpoint, if it isn't directly enabled or can be
> within one day, I am not sure what the point is.

Javelin(only the Spring part) will benefit the project in the long term. We switch Ant to
Maven in 4.0, how about we switch our home-made DI to Spring in 4.1? Maven & Spring both
are 
popular/modern/fashion tool/framework in the Java world,  the more we use them in the project,
the more java developers we can attract  into this project?
It does take a lot of our effort to make the switch on the Javelin branch, even though from
feature point of view, we add nothing in Javelin branch.
 
> 
> --David

Mime
View raw message