> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:20 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze > > Hi Animesh, > > I know you and I talked about this earlier in the month, but I just > wanted to make sure we were OK with me not providing a feature proposal > for the storage plug-in work I'm doing for 4.2. > > As you may recall, I have developed a storage plug-in for SolidFire, > enhanced the storage framework, and submitted the code a couple days > ago. > > Please let me know. > > Thanks! [Animesh>] In your previous email you had asked on how to handle if you are not able to complete the implementation by freeze date and I had responded that we are on time bound release and if a logical chunk is available by freeze date that has been tested and ready, that chunk can come in. My bad I did not realize that feature proposal was not submitted for your plugin. I see your patch request https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/ submitted on 5/28 has good description but it's not complete as per our design documents. Here is link to 4.2 Design Documents on wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/dzXVAQ. Also I did not find a JIRA ticket.
Comments from anyone else in community, with the current 4.2 timeline the proposal date is already past due, how should we suggest we proceed on Mike's contribution? I think formal proposal and discussion needs to happen for . If we move towards extending the freeze date by 4 weeks then obviously it is not an issue. > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----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.h > > > >>> tml > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> 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> > > > >>>> * * > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > *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> > *(tm)*
