+1 for pushing out the feature freeze to 3/28. Most of us have been busy with 4.3 and so it will be good to have some extra room to focus fully on our 4.4 features.
Myself and Min are working on the IAM feature (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5920) and I feel that 3/28 will give us some room to test our code and add better integration tests. Current integration tests do not focus on testing IAM functionality with default roles (user/domainadmin/admin) at all. So it is good to cover as many as we could. Thanks, Prachi -----Original Message----- From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:31 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze 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)*
