On 08-Oct-2012, at 7:28 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Is someone from Citrix QA currently testing this? I've asked one of our QA engineers to verify this. > >> 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. > > I think this is up for discussion. Can you start a different thread > on the topic (with the specific changes)? I do agree that the work on > master to switch to maven completely is critical... but do the ant > build files inform the maven work enough that drift between 4.0 and > master should be avoided? I've started a new thread. I'm not sure about this, though the patches are practically harmless as they don't affect any codebase or maven pom files. > >> 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 >> >>
