cf. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > Minor correction, "build" is official ASF nomenclature. > > "A Build is a package which is not suitable for distribution to the > general public. They are works-in-progress, and as such the only people > builds should be offered to are other people working on product development > at the foundation." > > "Release candidate" is not, however, and is best avoided. We don't really > do release candidates at apache, so if you use it to talk about voting > artefacts, you risk confusing people who assume you're using the more > common sense of the word. If something is alpha, call it alpha. > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>wrote: > >> Chip, >> >> Can you point me to where you're hosting these builds? >> >> We need to be super careful about the distinction between the following >> items: >> >> - A build >> - A source or binary package that will note be voted on >> - A release candidate >> - A source package that is being voted on >> - A release >> - A source package that has been voted on >> >> (Please note that "build" and "release candidate" are not official ASF >> nomenclature. You could call a build a "package" or a "nightly" or a >> "tarball" or whatever it happens to be. Build kinda works for most things. >> It's a preparation of the source. And release candidate might just be >> called "the voting artefact" or what have you. It's the thing we're voting >> on for a release.) >> >> A binary package will never be anything more than a build that is >> prepared by an individual for the convenience of others. So let's just get >> that out of the way. A binary package can never graduate to anything other >> than a build. >> >> A source package can do many things though. >> >> On the one hand, as an individual, we can prepare source packages as >> snapshots, or nightlies. A committer can upload them to people.apache.org, >> and advertise them to developers. (But we must not advertise them to users >> without heavy caveating.) Generally, these are used by people working on >> the project itself, not with the project. Though, we may want to highlight >> a particular build before starting the official release process, to get >> feedback on things. >> >> If we think we're ready for a release, we can prepare a build to vote on. >> We upload this to people.apache.org, and we start a VOTE thread. At this >> point, the build becomes a release candidate. And only at this point. (Also >> note that because a release candidate must progress to a release without >> any modification, we cannot include "RC" in the version number.) >> >> If the vote passes, the source package becomes a release, and we upload >> it to our dist dir and tell users about it. >> >> In this context, language like this concerns me: >> >> "each RC build should come with release notes" >> >> These are not release candidates unless we're voting on them, and they >> certainly must not come with release notes. >> >> If an individual is providing nightlies, let's call them nighties, and >> let's attach "QA notes". >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com >> > wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Chip, >>> > >>> > In the future, we should. If we were doing this right (which we >>> aren't today), each RC build should come with release notes about what QA >>> has found to be problems. I think what you're putting up right now are >>> more closer to nightly unstable builds than RC builds. >>> >>> Agreed on that front. Really though, I'm not doing a "build". I'm >>> packaging the code only. >>> >>> We're in a weird state right now, since we won't be able to pass a >>> vote yet. The way I see other projects doing this, is that even >>> unstable builds / source packages can be considered a release. They >>> just get labeled something like "alpha" or whatever. The projects do >>> vote on them though (which we're not ready for). >>> >>> I guess I'll just keep incrementing for now - so that those people >>> looking at the source package know that it's a new version (vs. Citrix >>> QA, which I believe is pulling unofficial builds from Jenkins for >>> functional testing). >>> >>> -chip >>> >>> > The good news is that the quality has been pretty good so even the >>> nightly unstable builds are good. Today, that's mostly due to the majority >>> features in this release came from Citrix and were already tested by >>> Citrix. For future releases, we should follow a process of QA completes >>> 100% testing and that's a RC build while there's nightly builds for people >>> who are actually developing if they're interested. >>> > >>> > --Alex >>> > >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>> >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:14 PM >>> >> To: <cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org> >>> >> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> >> Subject: Re: [AFSCS40] Release status for CS 4.0 >>> >> >>> >> Alex, >>> >> >>> >> I've been cutting "RC" source code bundles, and have been numbering >>> them >>> >> as RCx (Wednesday will be RC3). >>> >> >>> >> Do you think I should switch to a more informal scheme until we have >>> >> something to vote on officially? >>> >> >>> >> - chip >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone. >>> >> >>> >> On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Hi All, >>> >> > >>> >> > I've been reminded that I've neglected to update the community on >>> the >>> >> current status for CloudStack 4.0. I apologize for that oversight. >>> From now til >>> >> the actual release, I will give a daily update on the status. If you >>> feel anything >>> >> is missing, please let me know and I'll try to include them on the >>> next update. >>> >> > >>> >> > Summary >>> >> > As of 9/24/2012, CloudStack 4.0 release has past code freeze stage >>> (over >>> >> three weeks ago). A source code branch has been forked and is called >>> 4.0. >>> >> Nightly build is running on Jenkins on the 4.0 build. >>> >> > >>> >> > Feature List >>> >> > There are two features that missed the 4.0 release. Auto-Scaling >>> and >>> >> Brocade Plugin. Both are due to having significant code changes due >>> past the >>> >> code freeze date. >>> >> > >>> >> > Code Readiness >>> >> > - There are ~5 code related reviews on the review board scheduled >>> for 4.0. >>> >> Most of them are waiting for review and commit. >>> >> > - There are <10 bugs on Jira for the first cut of the release. >>> >> > - Upgrade from previous versions is currently being worked on. >>> Scheduled >>> >> to be done by the end of the week. >>> >> > >>> >> > License Readiness >>> >> > - Majority of the VM configuration issues have been resolved. >>> There is one >>> >> remaining wrt rsyslog.conf. Thanks to Chiradeep and Chip. >>> >> > - Technology export issues are still be worked on by David Nalley >>> and AFS >>> >> legal. This may be a blocking issue. >>> >> > - Licenses need auditing. >>> >> > >>> >> > Doc Readiness >>> >> > The current plan for docs is to write an INSTALL.TXT to give >>> instructions on >>> >> how to install from source. All docs will be generated to a living >>> document >>> >> that continues to improve past the release. The link to this living >>> document is >>> >> to be determined. >>> >> > >>> >> > TODO: Docs need help on the new features in the 4.0 release. >>> Specifically >>> >> we need help with Niciria Integration and Caringo documentation. >>> >> > >>> >> > QA Status >>> >> > QA is proceeding through the test cycle. It is currently at 45% of >>> completion. >>> >> The number of bugs generated from the tests have been minimum so the >>> >> quality of the release currently looks pretty good. >>> >> > >>> >> > Release Plan >>> >> > - The current plan is for QA to complete its test cycle between >>> 9/26-9/28. >>> >> > - When QA decides the test cycle is read, we will cut a RC1 release. >>> >> > - We are currently pushing to clear bugs generated from the test >>> cycle asap. >>> >> > - After all P1 and P2 bugs are cleared, 4.0 release will be >>> submitted for >>> >> approval to announce. >>> >> > >>> >> > --Alex >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> NS >> > > > > -- > NS > -- NS
