I believe March 14th is Feature Freeze and, as such, when the 4.4 branch is cut.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Hugo Trippaers <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 > > > > > > > > Hugo as RM for 4.4 I would like support you in being strict on this. > > First if a feature is not listed in JIRA right now, then it does not exist > and is not planned for 4.4 > These features should be in topic branches and merges should be called, if > one of those gets merged without a MERGE request then we should revert. > When a MERGE is called the person calling the merge needs to explain the > testing done. > > Postponing always encourages more postponing, we need to get off the habit > of rushing code in and then fixing that code in the multiple RC votes. > > My take is that we are slipping on RC and re-voting because we are forcing > code into the release. > > I did not check if the 4.4 branch exists already but I would be in favor > of locking that branch now with you being the only one to commit to it. > > -sebastien > > > > Cheers, > > > > Hugo > > > > On 28 feb. 2014, at 10:17, Prasanna Santhanam <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 > >> > > > > -- *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)*
