To answer the "doc" part of John's question, I believe the documentation changes required would be small. Just update the URL in the system VM download step in the installation guide, and possibly add a "restart system VMs and virtual routers" step to the upgrade instructions, if needed.
Jessica t. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti < sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > John, > > Usually testing of templates require regression testing which usually take > ~2 week ( need to run core regression on them ). It is usually preferred to > test templates early on in release given the risk and also it would get > enough coverage by all the testing that happens during release cycles. > > We just got the 4.2 templates working couple of weeks ago and some > additional changes are being made for RVR related fixes - I think Bharat > has made some change yesterday. There are features closed in 4.2 early on > and QA used older templates for their testing. Those features will be using > new templates in second cycle run. I would say those templates are tested > 80% in 4.2. > > Using the 4.2 templates for 4.1 code base might not be that trivial in my > opinion. > > Thanks > /Sudha > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:35 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out > the door? > > All, > > Can someone please answer the following questions: > > 1. Besides testing, what work needs to be done back port the 4.2 system > VMs to 4.1 (e.g. docs, posting images for download, etc)? > 2. What is involved to test/verify the operation of 4.2 system VMs on > 4.1? What is labor/time estimate? > 3. How can community members help accelerate the work in 1 and 2? > > Thanks, > -John > > > > On May 21, 2013, at 8:24 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> > wrote: > > > I'm not arguing the value of blockers. Sure they are valuable. But our > > estimate of the harm (IMO) is totally out of proportion. Take the time > > sync issue. This has been there since 2.2.0. Are we saying that the > > thousands of production Cloudstack clouds are well and truly borked > > and cannot function? Nope. They work just fine. Should we fix it? Yes, > > but to Dave's point, we cannot hold up this release any longer. > > > > > > On 5/21/13 5:11 PM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > > > >> Chiradeep, > >> > >> This defect affects 100% of users that use system VMs which I believe > >> is all of them. It also appears that we have a fix for this problem > >> that needs to be pulled back from 4.2 and tested. What is involved > >> with testing it? > >> > >> Personally, I would be please if we found more blockers before the > >> release of 4.1.0. The ideal is that the quality of our .0 releases > >> does not require subsequent patch release. While such an ideal is > >> not possible, it should be goal to which we strive. As has been > >> pointed out in the 4.0.3 discussion, each patch release has a cost. > >> My hope is that 4.1.0 is of high enough quality that any defect fixes > >> can be held to 4.2.0. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -John > >> > >> On May 21, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Chiradeep Vittal > >> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > >>> But the longer we hold the window open for folks to raise defects, > >>> the longer it will take to release. Why can't we enforce our own > >>> timelines and say "this is it". Any release will have blockers for a > >>> subset of users. > >>> It > >>> seems to me that we are inefficient in estimating the harm from a > >>> 'blocker' defect -- I.e., the defect is assumed to affect 100% of > >>> the users and therefore blocks the release. There's always 4.1.1 > >>> > >>> > >>> On 5/21/13 2:20 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Chip Childers > >>>> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:34:45AM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > >>>>>> I don't see limited interest. It seems that bugs are trickling in > >>>>>> every day and they are being taken up as they come in. Is there > >>>>>> any blocker without any action for more than a few days? The only > >>>>>> one I can see CLOUDSTACK-2463. > >>>>> > >>>>> Chiradeep, > >>>>> > >>>>> My response to Animesh was flippant and not overly helpful. You > >>>>> are correct that things are being addressed. My point was more > >>>>> that the community in general seems to have moved on from 4.1, yet > >>>>> we have not released it yet. Bugs that have come up are taking > >>>>> several requests for attention, and once there is a reply it's > >>>>> frequently taking several requests to get follow ups. This is a > >>>>> volunteer project, so that alone isn't the issue. I raise the > >>>>> question about what to do about 4.1 in the interest of asking the > >>>>> rest of the community if you have, indeed, moved on and want to > >>>>> focus on 4.2 instead. > >>>>> > >>>>> Others, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm frankly surprised at how few people have responded to this > >>>>> thread, given the volume of commit / merge / jira activity going > >>>>> on for new features. > >>>>> Obviously there is lots of effort going into new feature dev, so > >>>>> it's not at all like we have stopped paying attention to the > >>>>> project as a community (far from it). > >>>>> > >>>>> As for the current state of consensus around my questions: > >>>>> > >>>>> * Animesh indicated a desire to keep moving on both fronts. > >>>>> * Prasanna indicated his concern that changes in master are being > >>>>> missed by people looking at 4.1. > >>>>> * John indicated his concern about the priority conflict WRT > >>>>> stabilizing > >>>>> 4.2 and 4.1 concurrently. > >>>>> * Chiradeep - I know you replied to this thread (obviously), but > >>>>> I'm not sure if I saw an answer to the questions I raised > >>>>> (although you make a fair point, which I address above). > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm looking for more feedback one way or the other here. > >>>>> > >>>>> -chip > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> So here's my thoughts - and I apologize if this seems like a rant. > >>>> > >>>> The goal of the project is to release code. It's the cornerstone of > >>>> much of what we do. We've done a very good job in my opinion of > >>>> making CloudStack consumable by people who are comfortable hacking > >>>> on the source code. We have a number of people running versions of > >>>> CloudStack that have never been released yet, and doing so pretty > confidently. > >>>> Most of our target audience is either not comfortable doing that, > >>>> or not comfortable running something in production that hasn't been > >>>> blessed as a release, and doesn't have a known upgrade path. > >>>> > >>>> While it's not just the goal and purpose of the project to release > >>>> code - it's also vital to the health and growth of our user community. > >>>> Regular, timely releases are important. The 50,000 foot view of > >>>> things is that there is apathy about the 4.1 release. Lots of > >>>> activity is happening around feature development, but not a lot of > >>>> care (even in form of opinions in these threads) given to some of > >>>> the 4.1 blocker issues. > >>>> > >>>> Performing a release is how we show the world how awesome we are, > >>>> and how awesome our software is. Writing the software, developing > >>>> cool new features and never pushing it out the door is a waste - > >>>> virtually no one but us will see it. The equivalent of getting > >>>> dressed up for a night on the town, but never leaving the house. In > >>>> short it isn't done until there is a release, and seeing large > >>>> features being developed and landing while bugs that block a > >>>> release take a lot of coaxing to get fixed gives a bad impression. > >>>> > >>>> --David > > >
