Re: ***Cloudstack EUUG - CFP***
Hi Giles, I could give a talk on live migration with KVM that we have since one year here. That might help to get the feature fixed and merged for CS. Let me know. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1709 Marc-Aurèle On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Hi, > > Registered and arranged travel! > > I can give a short IPv6 talk (again?). Aug 17th we should be running the > 4.10 code in production so I can share some details en demos? > > Wido > > > Op 22 juni 2017 om 11:42 schreef Giles Sirett < > giles.sir...@shapeblue.com>: > > > > > > All > > The next Cloudstack European User Group will be in 17 August in London > > I'm just putting the agenda together at the moment. If anybodys got a > cloudstack-related talk they'd like to present then ping me. > > > > For those that don't fancy speaking, it would be great to see as many of > you there as possible > > > > https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cloudstack-european-user- > group-tickets-35565783215?aff=es2 > > > > > > Kind regards > > Giles > > > > > > giles.sir...@shapeblue.com > > www.shapeblue.com > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > > @shapeblue > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.10.0.0 RC6
Hi all, I 'm sorry for voting -1 again. Issue : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9980 Caused by : https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089 Fixed by : https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2162 Kris - Nuage Networks On 26 June 2017 at 18:58, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: > +1 (binding) > > I am not concerned about the code changes that went into this RC since the > previous RC, so I am still happy with the amount of automated and manual > testing that I performed on a previous RC. > > On 6/25/17, 11:07 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I've created 4.10.0.0 release with the following artifacts up for a > vote: > > Git Branch and Commit SH: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/ > 0272d1da0ed11ce6c884b05d630e9f46674c58ff > Commit:0272d1da0ed11ce6c884b05d630e9f46674c58ff > Branch: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.10.0.0- > RC20170626T1011 > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > location): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/ > > SystemVm Templates: http://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.10/RC6/ > > PRs merged since RC4: #2150 and #2089 > PRs merged since RC5: revert of #2084 > > PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to > indicate > "(binding)" with their vote? > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > Thanks, > ~Rajani > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ > > >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
+1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus wrote: > Hi All, > > From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once > a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going > in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers > should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get > going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on > 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. > > People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the > product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. > > > Kind regards, > > Paul Angus > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] > Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Wido den Hollander > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 > > I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed > in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has > dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a > whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC > and releasing it). > > I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need > to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize > it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran > against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated > test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. > > As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) > PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch > for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to > blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). > > What do people think? > > On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: > > this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch > only and merge forward > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens < > williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are > not > > blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately > results in a > > longer RC process. > > > > It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well. > > > > On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" > wrote: > > > > Thanks Mike, > > > > Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you. > > > > Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect > > of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( > > > > Thanks, > > > > ~ Rajani > > > > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ > > > > On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike > > (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related > > tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like > > to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on > > the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within > > 24 hours). > > > > Thanks! > > Mike > > > > On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" > > wrote: > > > >> Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike" > > : > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I opened a PR against the most recent RC: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141 > >> > >> I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they > > pass (as noted in detail in the PR). > >> > >> If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from > > it, I’m +1 on the new RC as long as this is the only commit added > > to it since the current RC. > > > > Thanks Mike! > > > > If this PR is good we should probably merge it asap and go for > > RC5. > > > > 4.10 should really be released by now. > > > > Wido > > > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Mike > >> > >> On 6/9/17, 7:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I found a critical issue that was introd
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
I'm glad you guys (Paul and Rafael) agree with me. We should cut a branch once the first RC is built. Then we should only allow blockers in to fix RC issues. This should speed up our releases in the future. > On Jun 27, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Rafael Weingärtner > wrote: > > +1 to what Paul said. > IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all > merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address > specific problems in the RC. > I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this > version, we have not followed it? > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once >> a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going >> in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers >> should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get >> going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on >> 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. >> >> People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the >> product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Paul Angus >> >> paul.an...@shapeblue.com >> www.shapeblue.com >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >> @shapeblue >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] >> Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Cc: Wido den Hollander >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 >> >> I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed >> in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has >> dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a >> whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC >> and releasing it). >> >> I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need >> to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize >> it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran >> against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated >> test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. >> >> As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) >> PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch >> for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to >> blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). >> >> What do people think? >> >> On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: >> >>this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch >>only and merge forward >> >>On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens < >> williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are >> not >>> blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately >> results in a >>> longer RC process. >>> >>> It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well. >>> >>> On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" >> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Mike, >>> >>> Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you. >>> >>> Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect >>> of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> ~ Rajani >>> >>> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ >>> >>> On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike >>> (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related >>> tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like >>> to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on >>> the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within >>> 24 hours). >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Mike >>> >>> On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" >>> wrote: >>> Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike" >>> : Hi, I opened a PR against the most recent RC: >>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141 I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they >>> pass (as noted in detail in the PR). If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from >>> it, I’m +1 on the new RC as long as this is the only commit added >>> to it since the current RC. >>> >>> Thanks Mike! >>> >>> If this PR is good we should probably merge it asap and go for >>> RC5. >>> >>> 4.10 should really be released by now. >>> >>> Wido >>> Thanks! Mike On 6/9/17, 7:
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.10.0.0 RC6
Hi Kris, Can you please apply 2162 locally and see if you are OK with the changes? We shouldn't be spending one RC cycle for one issue. Ideally, we should have more CIs running on PRs from different usage perspectives(like managed storage, nuage, basic network, local storage, etc.). That would help uncover issues before they are merged. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Kris Sterckx (kris.ster...@nuagenetworks.net) wrote: Hi all, I 'm sorry for voting -1 again. Issue : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9980 Caused by : https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089 Fixed by : https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2162 Kris - Nuage Networks On 26 June 2017 at 18:58, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: +1 (binding) I am not concerned about the code changes that went into this RC since the previous RC, so I am still happy with the amount of automated and manual testing that I performed on a previous RC. On 6/25/17, 11:07 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" wrote: Hi All, I've created 4.10.0.0 release with the following artifacts up for a vote: Git Branch and Commit SH: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/ 0272d1da0ed11ce6c884b05d630e9f46674c58ff Commit:0272d1da0ed11ce6c884b05d630e9f46674c58ff Branch: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.10.0.0- RC20170626T1011 Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same location): https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/ SystemVm Templates: http://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.10/RC6/ PRs merged since RC4: #2150 and #2089 PRs merged since RC5: revert of #2084 PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821): https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS Vote will be open for 72 hours. For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote? [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, ~Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively participating in the release process. We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to test. I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively. We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list. Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current situation. We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. principles and theory wont help. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus wrote: Hi All, >From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and releasing it). I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). What do people think? On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch only and merge forward On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens < williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are not blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately results in a longer RC process. It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well. On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" wrote: Thanks Mike, Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you. Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: Hi everyone, I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within 24 hours). Thanks! Mike On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" wrote: Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike" : Hi, I opened a PR against the most recent RC: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141 I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they pass (as noted in detail in the PR). If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from
RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Rajani, I suspect that fatigue with the 4.10 release testing that we are seeing is due to the time it has taken to release it. And that is has been caused by new code going in, which have introduced new bugs. This was demonstrated in the last -1 from Kris. This change was merged 10 days ago. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] Sent: 28 June 2017 06:14 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively participating in the release process. We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to test. I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively. We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list. Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current situation. We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. principles and theory wont help. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus wrote: Hi All, From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and releasing it). I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). What do people think? On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch only and merge forward On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens < williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are not blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately results in a longer RC process. It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well. On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" wrote: Thanks Mike, Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you. Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: Hi everyon
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Hi, I personally still like the idea of a new branch being created right around the time we cut our first RC. Even if people want to commit changes to the new branch, they should understand that that code won't be formally released until the pending RC is validated and released. That being the case, I would think those who choose to commit to the new branch will have a vested interest in the RC going out, as well. In any event, in addition to the current automated regression tests that are run, we still have a lot of tests that are not hooked into the build that are being run ad hoc (managed storage automated tests are an example). Additionally, we seem to have a lot of manual tests being run. Until we can deliver a framework in which we have a very high percentage of the system covered by automated tests, there is really no way we should consider monthly releases. I think we are still shooting for releases every four months, which seems fair given our current system. If we enact some deadlines like a code freeze going forward, that should help. With only blocker PRs going into subsequent RCs, we should be able to avoid a lot of unnecessary spin. I definitely want to point out that I appreciate everyone's time and effort. In particular, I want to be clear that it is not my intent to be critical of anyone who's been working in release management. My only goal with this chain of e-mails is to see if we can continue to improve the process. Thanks, everyone! Mike > On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > > We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people > actively participating in the release process. > > We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. > We, very clearly do not have enough people working on > releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases > or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs > open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to > test. > > I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on > them actively. > > We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to > be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long > discussions on this list. > > Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont > change the current situation. > > We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. > principles and theory wont help. > > Thanks, > > ~ Rajani > > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ > > On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner > (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: > > +1 to what Paul said. > IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a > version, all > merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs > that address > specific problems in the RC. > I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for > this > version, we have not followed it? > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus > > wrote: > > Hi All, > > From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own > downfall. Once > a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements > should be going > in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for > the blockers > should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next > one can get > going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd > probably be on > 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the > new fixes in. > > People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not > making the > product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see > here. > > Kind regards, > > Paul Angus > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > -Original Message- > From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] > Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Wido den Hollander > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 > > I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve > discussed > in the past is that overall community participation in the RC > process has > dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the > community as a > whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on > testing the RC > and releasing it). > > I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first > RC, we need > to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to > stabilize > it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests > that ran > against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our > automated > test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. > > As we approach the first RC, on
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Paul, Which shows we are not actively following RCs. That PR was a blocker for RC3 and was well discussed. That PR is a perfect example that we are not working as community to release code. That is a fix for a blocker which stayed open for more than 45 days. If you see till RC2 it was only blockers that were merged. But, since it has taken a lot more time to fix blockers, more PRs were merged on request on the mailing list(and we don't have people even to object it). you can think of it as a combination of two releases due to the time it has taken. ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Paul Angus (paul.an...@shapeblue.com) wrote: Rajani, I suspect that fatigue with the 4.10 release testing that we are seeing is due to the time it has taken to release it. And that is has been caused by new code going in, which have introduced new bugs. This was demonstrated in the last -1 from Kris. This change was merged 10 days ago. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] Sent: 28 June 2017 06:14 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively participating in the release process. We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to test. I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively. We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list. Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current situation. We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. principles and theory wont help. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus wrote: Hi All, >From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and releasing it). I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). What do people think? On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch only and merge forward On Tue, Ju
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
I'm with Mike on this. fixes go into the rc branch, features don't and that's a clearer line then we have now. or we could just keep rc'ing untill one passes and keep working on stablising whichever branch we choose for that allowing both features and fixes. On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: > Hi, > > I personally still like the idea of a new branch being created right around > the time we cut our first RC. > > Even if people want to commit changes to the new branch, they should > understand that that code won't be formally released until the pending RC is > validated and released. > > That being the case, I would think those who choose to commit to the new > branch will have a vested interest in the RC going out, as well. > > In any event, in addition to the current automated regression tests that are > run, we still have a lot of tests that are not hooked into the build that are > being run ad hoc (managed storage automated tests are an example). > Additionally, we seem to have a lot of manual tests being run. > > Until we can deliver a framework in which we have a very high percentage of > the system covered by automated tests, there is really no way we should > consider monthly releases. > > I think we are still shooting for releases every four months, which seems > fair given our current system. > > If we enact some deadlines like a code freeze going forward, that should > help. With only blocker PRs going into subsequent RCs, we should be able to > avoid a lot of unnecessary spin. > > I definitely want to point out that I appreciate everyone's time and effort. > In particular, I want to be clear that it is not my intent to be critical of > anyone who's been working in release management. My only goal with this chain > of e-mails is to see if we can continue to improve the process. > > Thanks, everyone! > Mike > >> On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: >> >> We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people >> actively participating in the release process. >> >> We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. >> We, very clearly do not have enough people working on >> releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases >> or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs >> open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to >> test. >> >> I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on >> them actively. >> >> We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to >> be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long >> discussions on this list. >> >> Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont >> change the current situation. >> >> We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. >> principles and theory wont help. >> >> Thanks, >> >> ~ Rajani >> >> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ >> >> On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner >> (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> +1 to what Paul said. >> IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a >> version, all >> merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs >> that address >> specific problems in the RC. >> I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for >> this >> version, we have not followed it? >> >> [1] >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen >> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus >> >> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own >> downfall. Once >> a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements >> should be going >> in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for >> the blockers >> should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next >> one can get >> going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd >> probably be on >> 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the >> new fixes in. >> >> People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not >> making the >> product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see >> here. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Paul Angus >> >> paul.an...@shapeblue.com >> www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >> @shapeblue >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] >> Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Cc: Wido den Hollander >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 >> >> I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve >> discussed >> in the past is that overall community participation in the RC >> process has >> dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the >> community as a >> whole tends to focus more on the new branch rath
RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Those new PRs should not have been merged. Those on the mailing list should respect the process and accept that they will have to wait until code is unfrozen. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] Sent: 28 June 2017 07:45 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 Paul, Which shows we are not actively following RCs. That PR was a blocker for RC3 and was well discussed. That PR is a perfect example that we are not working as community to release code. That is a fix for a blocker which stayed open for more than 45 days. If you see till RC2 it was only blockers that were merged. But, since it has taken a lot more time to fix blockers, more PRs were merged on request on the mailing list(and we don't have people even to object it). you can think of it as a combination of two releases due to the time it has taken. ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Paul Angus (paul.an...@shapeblue.com) wrote: Rajani, I suspect that fatigue with the 4.10 release testing that we are seeing is due to the time it has taken to release it. And that is has been caused by new code going in, which have introduced new bugs. This was demonstrated in the last -1 from Kris. This change was merged 10 days ago. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] Sent: 28 June 2017 06:14 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively participating in the release process. We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to test. I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively. We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list. Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current situation. We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. principles and theory wont help. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus wrote: Hi All, From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and releasing it). I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our auto
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
I don't think creating a branch will help in releasing faster. It will only make it worse in my opinion. If we can release faster, features will stay in the PR branch for a short while and can be merged quickly. ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 28, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Daan Hoogland (daan.hoogl...@gmail.com) wrote: I'm with Mike on this. fixes go into the rc branch, features don't and that's a clearer line then we have now. or we could just keep rc'ing untill one passes and keep working on stablising whichever branch we choose for that allowing both features and fixes. On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: Hi, I personally still like the idea of a new branch being created right around the time we cut our first RC. Even if people want to commit changes to the new branch, they should understand that that code won't be formally released until the pending RC is validated and released. That being the case, I would think those who choose to commit to the new branch will have a vested interest in the RC going out, as well. In any event, in addition to the current automated regression tests that are run, we still have a lot of tests that are not hooked into the build that are being run ad hoc (managed storage automated tests are an example). Additionally, we seem to have a lot of manual tests being run. Until we can deliver a framework in which we have a very high percentage of the system covered by automated tests, there is really no way we should consider monthly releases. I think we are still shooting for releases every four months, which seems fair given our current system. If we enact some deadlines like a code freeze going forward, that should help. With only blocker PRs going into subsequent RCs, we should be able to avoid a lot of unnecessary spin. I definitely want to point out that I appreciate everyone's time and effort. In particular, I want to be clear that it is not my intent to be critical of anyone who's been working in release management. My only goal with this chain of e-mails is to see if we can continue to improve the process. Thanks, everyone! Mike On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively participating in the release process. We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to test. I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively. We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list. Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current situation. We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. principles and theory wont help. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus wrote: Hi All, >From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -Original Message- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to
