On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:25:10PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > > > > -----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? > > This kind of refactor takes time, a lot of time. I think I worked on the > merge of primary storage refactor into master and bug fixes during > March(http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/14469), > then started to work on the secondary storage refactor in > April(http://markmail.org/message/cspb6xweeupfvpit). Min and I finished the > coding at end of April, then tested for two weeks, send out the merge request > at middle of May. > With the refactor, the storage code will be much cleaner, and the > performance of S3 will be improved, and integration with other storage vendor > will be much easier, and the quality is ok(33 bugs fired, only 5 left: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22Object_Store_Refactor%22). > Anyway, it's up to the community to decide, merge it or not, we already > tried our best to get it done ASAP. > >
I'm absolutely not questioning the time and effort here. I know that you have been working hard, and that testing is happening! I'm only asking if we, as a community, want to follow the practice of bringing changes like this in early or late in a cycle. I thought we had agreed on doing it early.
