Daan I concur with Sudha we should not change the priority of individual defects without technical reasons. The outgoing defect rate is much lower for this time of the release and certainly is a concern as you have raised. We should publish daily list of blockers and ask for status update.
You can also do bulk edit for open tickets and ask for updates, I will also nudge a few folks here. thanks Animesh > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 9:21 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [ACS44][PROPOSAL] old blocker bugs > > > -1 on the proposal to lower priority of defects based on timeframe. These > are blockers for features and some for release as well. We should not be > modifying the priority of defect unless the original reporter or RM agrees to > do so for technical reasons but not because these are not touched by > anyone. As this is community based development environment, someone > need to pick up and get the context and fix it which might be taking time. > Understand that community should be aware of these blockers on daily > basis and pick those up faster and fix them within reasonable SLAs. > Unfortunately we do not have any SLAs. It is dangerous proposal to reduce > priority without review of technical impact of the defect. > > Following process improvement would help to address this issue: > > - Set SLAs for a more streamlined approach towards addressing defects > within reasonable timeframe. For eg blockers should be fixed within 24 > hours, critical within 72 hours etc. > - Send daily reports to ML on the blockers to provide more visibility (I can > take up this task). > - republish definition of defect priority so community is aware on the proper > categorization of defects (I can publish this as well on wiki. > > Thanks > /Sudha > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:11 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: [ACS44][PROPOSAL] old blocker bugs > > Not well formatted but is this what you want? > > Key Summary Reporter Assignee Updated > CLOUDSTACK-6754 > > SSVM not responding with S3 secondary sotre > > Pavan Kumar Bandarupally Min Chen 26/May/14 Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6755 > > [OVS] Can't create more than 7 GRE tunnel networks in xen cluster > > Sanjeev N Murali Reddy 23/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6623 > > Register template does not work as expected, when deploying simulator and > xen zones simultaneously on a single management server. > > Bharat Kumar edison su 22/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6603 > > [Upgrade]DB Exception while Autoscale monitoring after upgrading from 4.3 > to 4.4 > > manasaveloori Rajesh Battala 22/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6662 > > New XenServer host is not activated due to no agent connection > > Daan Hoogland Anthony Xu 22/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6730 > > [Automation] test_egress_fw_rules test case failing while applying FW rule > > Rayees Namathponnan Rayees Namathponnan 22/May/14 Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6710 > > [Automation] VM snapshot failing with NPE in vmware > > Rayees Namathponnan Likitha Shetty 21/May/14 Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6602 > > [UI] createNetworkACL API action param value passed incorrectly > > Jayapal Reddy Jessica Wang 20/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6675 > > NPE while executing updatePortForwardingRule > > Chandan Purushothama Alena Prokharchyk 20/May/14 Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6673 > > cloudstack-setup-management make a chmod 777 on /root > > Milamber Unassigned 19/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6644 > > Unable to attach Volume to a VM as a System User > > Chandan Purushothama edison su 19/May/14 Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6599 > > Template/Volume URLs expiration functionality not working > > Nitin Mehta Nitin Mehta 19/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6674 > > [Automation] [DB lock] When KVM agent is alert state, agent never trying to > connect back > > Rayees Namathponnan edison su 14/May/14 > Actions > CLOUDSTACK-6572 > > [Hyper-V] Deploy VM inside VPC tier fails due to VR unable to find nic > > Sowmya Krishnan Rajesh Battala 12/May/14 > > > > > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I didn't get any reactions on this second proposal and though I know > >> I can force discussion on it by just starting to implement it as well > >> I would really get some consent on this. > > > > Can you send the list of those blockers to the list with the name of the > reporter ? > > > >> > >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Daan Hoogland > >> <dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > >>> I will start implementing this on Monday. > >>> > >>> Also I would like to propose that nothing is a blocker unless it has been > agreed on, on list. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: donderdag 22 mei 2014 10:08 > >>> To: dev > >>> Subject: [ACS44][PROPOSAL] old blocker bugs > >>> > >>> LS, > >>> > >>> There are several blocker bugs registered for 4.4 that have not been > touched for over a week. I seems strange to me that a blocker would be left > alone for so long and I therefor propose to reduce priority of blockers that > have not been touched for over a week to trivial. I have mailed reporters to > a few querying about the status but this tactic doesn't work. > >>> > >>> thoughts? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daan > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daan > > > > > > -- > Daan
