On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:26 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to > start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we > stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on > vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release > management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to > that, feel free to shout!). > > Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps > we can get updates from the various community members working on the > items? > > CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed > The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some > activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment > on the status of this work? >From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it. There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 specific and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build xml files and cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master. Any case, Chip pl. see if we need to pull them on master. Regards. > > CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because... > Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in > c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to > the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0? > If not, should it be applied to 4.0? > > Release Notes and CHANGES file: > Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to > be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can > create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting > the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website) > during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped > all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since > it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as > possible on the website we'll be OK. > > I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes > the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get > ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be > shy with releasing new minor updates. > > Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts > that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to > cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE > thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as > possible. > > -chip
