> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM
> > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
> > > > >
> > > > > Edison,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, I will start going through it today. Based on other
> > > > > $dayjob responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -John
> > > > [Animesh>] John we are just a few days away from 4.2 feature
> > > > freeze, can
> > > you provide your comments by Friday 5/24. I would like all feature
> threads
> > > to be resolved sooner so that we don't have last minute rush.
> > >
> > > I'm just going to comment on this, but not take it much further...
> > > this type of change is an "architectural" change. We had previously
> > > discussed (on several
> > > threads) that the appropriate time for this sort of thing to hit
> > > master was
> > > *early* in the release cycle. Any reason that that consensus
> > > doesn't apply here?
> > [Animesh>] Yes it is an architectural change and discussion on this started
> > a
> few weeks back already, Min and Edison wanted to get it in sooner by 4/30
> but it took longer than anticipated in preparing for merge and testing on
> feature branch.
> >
> >
>
> You're not following me I think. See this thread on the Javelin merge:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/e6peml5ddkqa6jp4
>
> We have discussed that our preference is for architectural changes to hit
> master shortly after a feature branch is cut. Why are we not doing that here?
[Animesh>] I agree in principal that architectural changes should come in as
early in release as possible to ensure stability and proper review. In this
case the goals are being addressed with testing on feature branch and BVT.
Sangeetha / Rayees has filed a number of issues that are being addressed and
the review request was put in last week much ahead of the freeze date.
