Again...it's not going to break my heart personally if we keep the current feature freeze date or not (my code should be in soon), but I do think we need to get a bit real if we expect anyone who's working on a future release to help out testing RC builds.
I expect most people would prefer you help out on testing RC builds rather than you move forward with development on master. However, in the current model, you're incented a bit to ignore the RC builds and continue on with development on master if testing RCs is going to stop you from getting a feature into the next release. It's especially easy to ignore testing RC builds when there are six of them. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, John Kinsella <j...@stratosec.co> wrote: > I'm completely in-line with Hugo on this. Was actually going to make > similar comments about the...solidness of the arguments to move. > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 6:09 AM, Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl<mailto: > h...@trippaers.nl>> wrote: > > i'm all for being flexible, but i find a lot of the arguments used here > debatable. > > "It causes developers to rush their development to meet the deadline." > This will happen anyway, every time we've extended the deadline we got new > features coming in at the last minute. Actually i'm under the impression > that when we move the deadline people will actually try to get more > features in instead of working on stabilizing existing features. > > "We can't deliver features on the roadmap." There is validity to this > point, but on the other hand we already know the entire release schedule > way ahead, this feature freeze date should not come as a surprise. But as i > mentioned in an earlier mail, lets have this discussion. Post which > features might not make it into the release so we can have a discussion if > we should slip the release date to get this feature in. I think we all now > that there are commercial parties working with this software to build > releases and have customers demanding features, but if we don't discuss > that on list it's hard for us to take it into account. > > "Feature freeze wasn't called" True, i wasn't even aware that this was a > requirement. We should add this to the procedure here > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Releases so > release managers know this is expected of them. It should not impact the > dates as the dates are already fixed by the release schedule (every 4 > months) > > > I'm still -1 on extending the feature freeze. I would rather extend the > test/stability phase to we have some more time to fix issues before we get > into the RC spinning. > > > This is the list of current features targeted for 4.4 according to our > Jira. Which features would be impacted if we don't move the feature freeze? > > ASF JIRA > Project: CloudStack > Type: New Feature > Fix Version: 4.4.0 > Resolution: Unresolved > Sorted by: Updated descending > 1-15 of 15 as at: 28/Feb/14 15:07 > T Key Summary Assignee Reporter P Status Resolution Created Updated Due > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6181 > Root resize > Unassigned Nux <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 27/Feb/14 27/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6161 > distributed routing and network ACL with OVS plug-in > Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 24/Feb/14 > 24/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6092 > Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis > Saksham Srivastava Saksham Srivastava <major.png> <open.png> Open > Unresolved 13/Feb/14 20/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6144 > HA for guest VMs running Hyper-V > Unassigned Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 > 20/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6143 > Storage Live-Migration support for Hyper-V > Unassigned Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 > 20/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6142 > Zone Wide Primary Store in Hyper-V > Unassigned Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 > 20/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6104 > PVLAN support for CloudStack deployment over Nexus 1000v in VMware > environment > Sateesh Chodapuneedi Sateesh Chodapuneedi <major.png> <open.png> Open > Unresolved 14/Feb/14 15/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6109 > Support of iSCSI as primary store in Hyper-V > Rajesh Battala Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved > 14/Feb/14 14/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6106 > Support of VPC in HyperV > Rajesh Battala Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved > 14/Feb/14 14/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6090 > Virtual Router Service Failure Alerting > Harikrishna Patnala Harikrishna Patnala <major.png> <open.png> Open > Unresolved 13/Feb/14 13/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6052 > List VM enhancement to support querying with multiple VM IDs > Koushik Das Koushik Das <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 07/Feb/14 > 07/Feb/14 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5569 > enhance OVS plug-in to support region level VPC and guest networks that > span zones > Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 > 19/Dec/13 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5568 > introduce notion of guest network that spans multiple zones > Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 > 19/Dec/13 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5567 > enable VPC at region level > Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 > 19/Dec/13 > <newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5398 > Cloudstack network-element plugin to orchestrate Juniper's switches > Unassigned Pradeep H Krishnamurthy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved > 06/Dec/13 06/Dec/13 > > > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > On 28 feb. 2014, at 10:17, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org<mailto: > t...@apache.org>> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:26:10AM +0000, Ram Ganesh wrote: > Yes. I can only agree with you on this. When we come up with dates > we have to be cognizant about slips in prior releases (we had 6 RC > re-spins and counting....) which would have had impact which is the > case now. We have to be bit flexible with our dates. > > > But you do agree that the re-spins uncovered bugs/issues that needed > to be fixed? Is it perhaps a mismatch in when the artifacts start > getting tested by the users+devs as opposed to when company-x might be > satisfied with their testing? More than 90% of the re-spins are > bugs/issues uncovered by users who needed RC candidates and weren't > testing artifacts on a daily basis (I could be wrong here). I don't > think someone with a large test engineering team would wait for the > RCs to get rolling. May be if we addressed that mismatch in timing we > could have smaller RC phases. Something like a soft-freeze and a > hard-freeze. > > post soft-freeze : users+devs do a daily test (mostly manually for > features they care about) > post hard-freeze : everyone only looks at a daily automated test > report and if all looks good, we release? > > -- > Prasanna., > > ------------------------ > Powered by BigRock.com<http://bigrock.com/> > > > > Stratosec<http://stratosec.co/> - Compliance as a Service > o: 415.315.9385 > @johnlkinsella<http://twitter.com/johnlkinsella> > > -- *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)*
