On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:55:38PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi 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+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.
It absolutely should. The only caveat I'd say, is that if it's a plugin ONLY there is limited risk to the rest of the software. > > If we move towards extending the freeze date by 4 weeks then obviously > > it is not an issue. VOTE started to extend, but we should be working with Mike either way here. If it's agreed on and merged into master before the cut, it's in 4.2. If we do it a day after, then it's 4.3. We are trying to be time-based so that features can merge in (especially isolated ones) anytime really (if quality is good and there's consensus on technical approach). It's just a question of what release branch it makes it into. -chip
