I have created the following JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2778
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Thanks, Animesh...I will take a look at the Design Documents link you > provided. > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> 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+documentsfor >> 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)* >> > > > > -- > *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> *™*
