> -----Original Message----- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:42 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adapting git workflow for release branches > > Rohit, > > I don't see your count. At least Wido and I have voted +1 so that would be > +2 from the PMC. But the vote is a communitee vote. It is about > +techinique > not process is it. If not then non binding votes are merely for information > and > only PMC votes are counted. > > In cases like these I think either full concensus or anarchy are the only > options. > > I must say that I am very dissappointed by the idea that we must have a full > solution according to some instead of taking steps towards it. This wouold > have been a good step. I for one will not tolerate a -forward thread anymore > for any release I am responsible for. It has cost me to much time in searching > for the source of conflicts. Anarchy from my side until we find some > consensus!
Maybe I need to reiterate why I reject the proposal for now, as I am the only person vote -1(binding). I think we all understand the pain as a release manager, even right after 4.2 release, I asked community to think about how We gonna fix the release procedure(http://markmail.org/message/3bptkm2xyrai6i7m), no much response at that time. But the situation is much better now, as more and more people are trying to solve the problem, instead of staying on the status quo. To me, the highest priority issue we need to solve is the CI, even a simple CI against simulator, will catch a lot of regressions in management server code. The second priority, is code review. The git flow co-relates to how we gonna solve above two issues. I think that's the different opinions we have today, and I already made the point that If we choose different ways to solve the above two issues, we may choose different git flow: http://markmail.org/message/hyk54z7imn5gyqkn So can't we just put our efforts to solve the big problems at first, instead of debating on the small things forever? > > regards, > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Thanks for participating. After 120 hours or 5 days, the voting result > > for the proposal is as follows: > > > > +1 (PMC / binding) > > none > > > > +1 (non binding) > > 6 people > > > > 0 > > none > > > > -1 (PMC / binding) > > 1 person > > > > -1 (non binding) > > 3 people > > > > We don’t have a consensus/majority or a veto as per our bylaws; and > > the negative voters did not try to explain the deficiencies and raise > > issues in proposed agenda but their concerns were around valid broader > > issues of gate keeping, code quality and CI, and the common argument > > was to address those issues first. > > > > My personal opinion is that adopting the proposed changes will not > > change, affect or conflict with a CI/code quality solution that the > > community needs and will adopt in future. That said, it will be only > > peaceful and agreeable to re-propose the voting agenda again in future > and get community consensus. > > > > I would also welcome our PMC’s advise on this situation. > > > > Regards, > > Rohit Yadav > > Software Architect, ShapeBlue > > M. +41 779015219 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > > Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab > > > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related > > services > > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build< > > http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> > > CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment > > framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > > CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support< > > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> > > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses< > > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are > > intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do > > not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related > > companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you > > must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show > > it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have > > received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated > > in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company > > incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue > > Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in > > Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA > > Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is > traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered > trademark. > > > > > > -- > Daan
