Accidently sent too soon, updated my response in-line to Mike
> -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze > > > > > -----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. We follow the process outlined > in > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Adding+new+features+and+design+documents > for proposing new features > > 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 inclusion. > > 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)*
