Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared. Animesh is correct on this.
Just as a reminder on the terms of a release vote as per the by-laws (http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html) "3.4.4. Product Release When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is required to accept the release as an official release of the project. Lazy Majority of active PMC members is required for approval. Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the project development mailing list." but there is currently a PMC votes (cloudstack.apache.org/who.html): Alex Huang (ahuang) - No Vote Alex Karasulu (akarasulu)- No Vote Brett Porter (brett)- No Vote Chip Childers (chipchilders) -1 (Not declared Binding or Veto) Chiradeep Vittal (chiradeep) +1 Disheng Su (edison)- No Vote Matt Richard Hogstrom (hogstrom)- No Vote Hugo Trippaers (hugo)- No Vote John Burwell (jburwell)- No Vote Jim Jagielski (jim)- No Vote John Kinsella (jlk)- No Vote Joe Brockmeier (jzb)- No Vote David Nalley (ke4qqq)- No Vote Kevin Kluge (kluge)- No Vote Marcus Sorensen (mlsorensen) -1 (Not declared Binding or Veto) Mohammad Nour El-Din (mnour)- No Vote Noah Slater (nslater)- No Vote Olivier Lamy (olamy)- No Vote Prasanna Santhanam (tsp) +1 (Declared Binding) Sebastien Goasguen (sebgoa) +1 (Not sure if it was changed to -1) Wido den Hollander (widodh)- No Vote William Chan (willchan)- No Vote PMC Votes - 3 +1 / 2 -1 So Animesh is correct unless Sebastien you changed your vote to a -1 in all of these conversations and I missed it. Remember is is Lazy Majority of PMC Members only. Cheers, Matt On 9/9/13 5:08 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and >> more automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating >> for and Prasanna has done outstanding working on BVT, jenkins and the >> test matrix), we need to focus on how to get 4.2 out. >> > >> > Marcus has a binding -1, so that means the vote fails and we need >> another RC (unless someone challenges Marcus's veto and he changes his >> mind). >> > >[Animesh>] Sebastien the VOTE is by majority not a VETO. > >> > So what needs to be in the RC (aside from the cherry pick mentioned by >> Marcus). >> > Are there more blockers ? >> > Do we need to invest in more testing before cutting that new RC or is >> it just that one cherry pick ? >> > >> > If we agree on that and test before cutting, then maybe the vote can >> > pass :) >> > >> > -sebastien >> > >> > >> > On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Why can't we cover every use case, Marcus. We will need help from >> >> users, but if they do help it will be easy to do so. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Marcus Sorensen >> <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I was actually talking about separate things in relation to this >> >>> thread and the other where I mentioned that I'd like to see a >> >>> release focused on bugfixing and testing. With that, I'm advocating >> >>> a test for every api call and focusing on broadening use case test >> coverage. >> >>> >> >>> Here, I'm simply talking about taking the support matrix and doing >> >>> some vary basic testing. This can be a dozen or so tests, each >> >>> platform we say we support needs to successfully deploy a zone and a >> >>> vm on every storage type that is in the support matrix. I don't >> >>> think this would include plugins (or maybe those are left to the >> >>> developer of the third party plugin). For KVM, this is literally a >> >>> marvin script away from being there, I don't think there's a ton of >> >>> work. I have no idea what we have or can do with vmware, and I'm >> >>> guessing Xen is largely covered already. >> >>> >> >>> We'll never be able to cover every use case, I may be able to deploy >> >>> a zone with my KVM setup, but not someone else's special network >> layout. >> >>> I'd just like to see sanity checks to say it works, at all, on the >> >>> handful of 'supported' systems. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mike Tutkowski >> >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> >>>> Do we have any statistics that say how many of our customers are >> >>>> using feature x, feature y, etc.? >> >>>> >> >>>> If not, I would say if we know about a feature that has regressed >> >>>> to the point of breakage in 4.2 that it should be fixed before >> >>>> releasing (or at the very least well documented, so - if it is >> >>>> impactful to someone - they do not upgrade until it has been >> fixed). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < >> >>>> chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I think that Animesh is trying to stress what is "key". If it hits >> >>>>> 1% of cloud operators is it key? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 9/9/13 7:42 AM, "Simon Weller" <swel...@ena.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> -1 from me as well. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I know we're trying to hit timed releases, but I think it's very >> >>>>>> important to preserve key underlying functionality across >> >>>>>> releases. If a supported and documented feature is known to be >> >>>>>> broken, we need to address it...if we don't, it's going to cause >> >>>>>> lots of pain, and reflect badly on ACS as a project. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> From: "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> >>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 9:24:23 AM >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:40:30AM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote: >> >>>>>>> -1 ... sorry guys, especially with Simon chiming in. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I'd request f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9 be cherry- >> picked. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Agreed. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I'm -1, given simon's perspective as well. Since we have the fix, >> >>>>>> let's get it into the release. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> *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)* >> >
