All, I apologize for a lack of clarity in the original proposal, but I intended for 4 week extension on the feature freeze to be added onto the release and not encroach on the test window.
Thanks, -John On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti < sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > +1 on limiting feature proposals for 1 week so scope would not increase > dramatically. > > +1 on the time line proposed - The extension proposed by Animesh would > help to close feature which are almost ready for check-in but need quality > checks. This would help for overall quality. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:w...@widodh.nl] > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:42 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze > > > > > > > > On 05/30/2013 07:43 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > > > I'm actually OK with delaying the release (as you pointed out, 4.1 > > > impacted 4.2 in a big way). *I* like flexibility. But it behooves > > > the community to have a stable set of rules. > > > > > > It is the cognitive dissonance that bothers me. Theoretically a > > > time-based release doesn't care about such impacts, but reality is > > > that if someone has been working on a feature for 4 months and it > > > doesn't make it because of the cut-off, they are going to feel > > > aggrieved, especially if at some point in the past the community > > agreed to make an exception. > > > > > > > I ack on this one. A lot of work went into the object store branch > > (since that's what discussion seems to be pointing at) and it would be > > a nightmare for the developers to merge this into 4.3. > > > > John had valid points on the merge of the branch, but imho those can > > be fixed after it's merged in. > > > > It's feature freeze, but it doesn't mean that we can't do any > > squashing of bugs. > > > > Other developers are also waiting on merging their stuff in after the > > freeze so it will hit 4.3 > > > > I wouldn't open the window for features longer since that might bring > > more stuff into 4.2 which needs QA as well. > > > > Wido > > > [Animesh>] Like in the original schedule for 4.1 / 4.2 feature proposals > are closed 3-4 weeks before the freeze date, we can still go with > compromise of 4 weeks extension in feature freeze date but limit feature > proposal to come in by June 1st week > > > > On 5/30/13 3:49 AM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Chiradeep, > > >> > > >> As I understood that conversation, it was about permanently > > >> changing the length of release cycles. I am proposing that we > > >> acknowledge the impact of the longer than anticipated 4.1.0 > > >> release, and push out 4.2.0. 4.3.0 would still be a four month > > >> release cycle, it would just start X weeks later. > > >> > > >> I like Chip's compromise of 4 weeks. I think it would be a great > > >> benefit to the 4.2.0 release if the community had the opportunity > > >> to completely focus on its development for some period of time. > > >> > > >> Finally, to David's concern that other features might be added > > >> during such an extension. I think that would be acceptable > > >> provided they pass review. The goal of my proposal is not permit > > >> more features but to give the community time to review and > > >> collaborate on changes coming into the release. If additional high > > >> quality feature implementations happen to get merged in during that > > >> period then I consider that a happy side effect. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> -John > > >> > > >> > > >> On May 30, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Chiradeep Vittal > > >> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> This topic was already discussed here: > > >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg03235.htm > > >>> l > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The consensus then was "revisit *after* 4.2". I won't rehash the > > >>> pros and cons, please do familiarize yourself with that thread. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 5/29/13 10:10 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" > > >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 Four weeks extra would be ideal in this situation. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Sebastien Goasguen > > >>>> <run...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 30 May 2013, at 06:34, Chip Childers > > >>>>> <chip.child...@sungard.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On May 29, 2013, at 7:59 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> All, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay completing the > > >>>>>>> 4.1.0 > > >>>>> release, I would like propose that we re-evaluate the timelines > > >>>>> for the > > >>>>> 4.2.0 release. When the schedule was originally conceived, it > > >>>>> was intended that the project would have eight (8) weeks to > > >>>>> focus exclusively on > > >>>>> 4.2.0 > > >>>>> development. Unfortunately, this delay has created an > > >>>>> unfortunate conflict between squashing 4.1.0 bugs and completing > > >>>>> 4.2.0 features. I propose that we acknowledge this schedule > > >>>>> impact, and push back the 4.2.0 feature freeze date by eight (8) > > >>>>> weeks to 2 August 2013. This delay will give the project time > > >>>>> to properly review merges and address issues holistically, and, > > >>>>> hopefully, relieve a good bit of the stress incurred by the > > >>>>> simultaneous > > >>>>> 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 activities. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> -John > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This is a reasonable idea IMO. I'd probably only extend by a > > >>>>>> month personally, but your logic is sound. I'd much rather > > >>>>>> have reasoned discussions about code than argue procedural > > >>>>>> issues about timing any day. This might help facilitate that on > > >>>>>> some of the features folks are scrambling to complete. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Others? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am +1 on this, 4 weeks maybe ? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> *Mike Tutkowski* > > >>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > >>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > >>>> o: 303.746.7302 > > >>>> Advancing the way the world uses the > > >>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > > >>>> * * > > >>> > > > >
