Cool, thanks Chip. As a follow up, Apache httpd do "pre-release" versions for testing on the dev@ list.
"This directory contains pre-release test versions of the Apache HTTP Server and are not officially released tarballs. Please use only for testing." http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I am not involved with the httpd project, but I am guessing they use this as a staging area for builds that people want the community to test, and for hosting artefacts that are being voted on. (For a point of reference, in CouchDB Land™ we call an RFC on the proposed release to catch any concerns before the length release and voting process.) On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:09 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. > > I like the distinction you made here, specifically that we stop using > the term release candidate until we are talking about something that > we will / are voting on. To me, a release "candidate" is exactly > that: a candidate being voted on. > > Let's start using those terms from now on. The weekly builds that > I've been doing (source only) are just that - builds. > > -chip > > > 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
