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: [Propose] Propose following features for 4.1 release.....
Date Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:00:06 GMT
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:47:39PM +0530, Ram Ganesh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On 02/09/2013 04:41 AM, Ram Ganesh wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to propose following features which are at various stages in
> >> the review board(hit review board by Jan 31st) for inclusion into 4.1
> >> release.
> >>
> >> CLOUDSTACK-713 Limit Resources to domain/accounts
> >>   - Achieved "Ship it" status but not sure if it is in master branch.
> >>
> >> CLOUDSTACK-705 IP Address reservation within a network
> >>   - Review comments incorporated and updated patch re-submitted.
> >>
> >> CLOUDSTACK-197 Support for EC2 Query API (rest interface)
> >>   - Few patches achieved "Ship it" status and others are being reviewed.
> >>
> >> CLOUDSTACK-657 VMware vNetwork Distributed Virtual Switch support in
> >> CloudStack
> >>   - In final stage of closure on review comments.
> >>
> >
> > Although these are really nice features, the feature freeze for 4.1 was at
> > the end of January.
> >
> 
> Well. All these features hit the review board by end of January. By
> feature freeze I would assume no more feature requests post end of
> January. The features that hit the review board and met the freeze
> date should be given a window to get the review done which is not the
> case as of now.
>

Similarly to Wido, I want many of those features.  They should be merged
into master after reviews are compete, but they should not be included
in 4.1.0.  We need to focus 4.1.0 efforts on testing, bug fixing and
preparing to release.

> > Our current focus has to be getting 4.1 stable and packaged, adding more
> > features wouldn't be wise.
> >
> > And where do we stop? If we allow these new features, why shouldn't we also
> > include feature X or Y?
> >
> 
> This is a propose email and the community has the right to accept /
> reject the proposal.

Absolutely true!  Of course you can propose it.  If there was
overwhelming consensus that we include features that were submitted, but
not merged, then that would be important to know.

As I said above, my opinion is that we want to have time-based releases, with
hard dates like the feature freeze (last day for features to be merged
into master) on the schedule to help us achieve that goal.

Let's focus on getting these features reviewed and into master, so that
they can be part of the next feature release.

> 
> >> Your thoughts/flames please....
> >
> >
> > No flames, but this would get a -1 from me.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> RamG
> >>
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message