Re: New PMC member: Suresh Anaparti
Congratulations Suresh! Best Regards, Slavka On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 at 22:31, Nicolas Vazquez wrote: > Congratulations Suresh! > > Regards, > Nicolas Vazquez > > > From: Rohit Yadav > Date: Wednesday, 18 September 2024 at 07:52 > To: dev , users > Subject: New PMC member: Suresh Anaparti > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack > has invited Suresh Anaparti to become a PMC member and we are pleased > to announce that they have accepted. > > Suresh has contributed in the past and has shown effort to make the > project run smoothly. He also has served as the release manager for > CloudStack releases 4.16.1.0 and 4.19.1.0. > > Please join me in congratulating Suresh > > Regards, > Rohit Yadav > > > >
Re: Removal of unused plugins
Hi João, Thanks for the reply. I agree that the deprecation/removal of plugins should only happen in major releases. Kind regards, Wei On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:56 PM João Jandre wrote: > Hello all, Wei > > I think that's a great initiative, we should definitely trim the > codebase of old and unused integration/features. However, I think we > should not do this in a minor release. We could decide on what plugins > should be removed and announce/deprecate them in the next release. > However, the removal of features should only happen in major releases. > > I would like to once again bring back the recent discussions on > versioning: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/lh45w55c3jmhm7w2w0xgdvlw78pd4p87, > https://lists.apache.org/thread/4zs8d15ghvvwwro46ry5zjf8fn8x0t88, > https://lists.apache.org/thread/o6o9h3qp8gqrpq4v7o81tl6vp51tkjhg, and > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970. I think we should > really sit down and discuss the direction that we want to bring the > project. We should build a consensus on a versioning schema that will > come with the proper mechanisms of deprecating/removing features, as > well as introducing breaking changes. > > Looking at those discussions and Daniel's topics of discussions (see > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970#discussioncomment-9754199) > > here would be my new proposal: > > 1. **Looking at our history, what would be the ideal cadence of major > releases for our context and why?** On average, we take 9 months to > release a new minor version. Considering that our 'minor' versions are > where our major changes happen, we could take this cadence of minor > versions and transfer it into major ones. Furthermore, as we will have > mechanisms to introduce breaking changes (and those tend to take time), > we should add some padding on those 9 months and make it 1 year. We also > do not need to decide on a specific month to release the version, we > could have a quarter (Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4) that is when the version is scheduled > to release. That way, we will have some predictability on when the > release is out, but also some flexibility. > 2. **How and when should we define the RM for each major?** For the > 'how', I like the current system of someone volunteering and the > community voting on them; I don't see any reason to change this. As for > the 'when', the week following a new release, we should already have a > new RM to guide the next one. This way, we avoid having an aimless > project for too long. > 3. **How should we introduce disruptive changes and remove > compatibility?** For our first major release, I think we should announce > these changes as soon as the discussions about versioning are over and > introduce these changes on that release. But for the future, the better > method would be: on one major release, we announce the disruptive > changes and deprecate the necessary code; on the next one we introduce > the changes. > 4. **What are the community's common goals?** From our discussions, it > seems like a part of the community wants to keep the project as is and > not introduce too many breaking changes. However, we also have another > part of the community that wants to evolve the project and try to make > it even better. As always with a community we should strive to build a > consensus on changes, if they should or not happen. We could have an > annual discussion planned to map what are the next year's goals, as well > as decide on things that should not change (at least at the time). This > discussion could be held at the start of a new major release cycle so > that the RM has a north to follow and steer the community efforts. I > think that one common goal that we should try to achieve is the creation > of an automated release process. We could create a pipeline that does > most (or all) the release process so that we only have to approve it > (and tweak it if needed) before releasing. > 5. **Regarding minor releases, should we flexibilize it more or be more > rigid?** I think we should concentrate our big and new features on the > major versions; while tweaks and bug fixes would go on the minor > releases. This way, we can have more stable minor releases that do not > introduce too much stuff at a time. Focusing on the major releases for > new features will allow us to better test them and do better quality > control. > > If there is further interest in continuing the discussion on the release > process/versioning, please create a new thread so we can discuss it and > hammer it down. > > Best regards, > > João Jandre > > On 9/18/24 11:19, Wei ZHOU wrote: > > Thanks Byran. > > > > I think we will definitely keep the following the plugins > > - kvm, vmware, xenserver, simulator > > - ovs, vxlan, nsx, tungsten, internal-lb > > > > hyperv is not well-maintained, but I prefer to keep it. ovm/ovm3/ucs > > support could be dropped. > > > > for the network plugins, I do not have preferences. good to know that > Palo >
Re: Removal of unused plugins
Hello all, Wei I think that's a great initiative, we should definitely trim the codebase of old and unused integration/features. However, I think we should not do this in a minor release. We could decide on what plugins should be removed and announce/deprecate them in the next release. However, the removal of features should only happen in major releases. I would like to once again bring back the recent discussions on versioning: https://lists.apache.org/thread/lh45w55c3jmhm7w2w0xgdvlw78pd4p87, https://lists.apache.org/thread/4zs8d15ghvvwwro46ry5zjf8fn8x0t88, https://lists.apache.org/thread/o6o9h3qp8gqrpq4v7o81tl6vp51tkjhg, and https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970. I think we should really sit down and discuss the direction that we want to bring the project. We should build a consensus on a versioning schema that will come with the proper mechanisms of deprecating/removing features, as well as introducing breaking changes. Looking at those discussions and Daniel's topics of discussions (see https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/discussions/8970#discussioncomment-9754199) here would be my new proposal: 1. **Looking at our history, what would be the ideal cadence of major releases for our context and why?** On average, we take 9 months to release a new minor version. Considering that our 'minor' versions are where our major changes happen, we could take this cadence of minor versions and transfer it into major ones. Furthermore, as we will have mechanisms to introduce breaking changes (and those tend to take time), we should add some padding on those 9 months and make it 1 year. We also do not need to decide on a specific month to release the version, we could have a quarter (Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4) that is when the version is scheduled to release. That way, we will have some predictability on when the release is out, but also some flexibility. 2. **How and when should we define the RM for each major?** For the 'how', I like the current system of someone volunteering and the community voting on them; I don't see any reason to change this. As for the 'when', the week following a new release, we should already have a new RM to guide the next one. This way, we avoid having an aimless project for too long. 3. **How should we introduce disruptive changes and remove compatibility?** For our first major release, I think we should announce these changes as soon as the discussions about versioning are over and introduce these changes on that release. But for the future, the better method would be: on one major release, we announce the disruptive changes and deprecate the necessary code; on the next one we introduce the changes. 4. **What are the community's common goals?** From our discussions, it seems like a part of the community wants to keep the project as is and not introduce too many breaking changes. However, we also have another part of the community that wants to evolve the project and try to make it even better. As always with a community we should strive to build a consensus on changes, if they should or not happen. We could have an annual discussion planned to map what are the next year's goals, as well as decide on things that should not change (at least at the time). This discussion could be held at the start of a new major release cycle so that the RM has a north to follow and steer the community efforts. I think that one common goal that we should try to achieve is the creation of an automated release process. We could create a pipeline that does most (or all) the release process so that we only have to approve it (and tweak it if needed) before releasing. 5. **Regarding minor releases, should we flexibilize it more or be more rigid?** I think we should concentrate our big and new features on the major versions; while tweaks and bug fixes would go on the minor releases. This way, we can have more stable minor releases that do not introduce too much stuff at a time. Focusing on the major releases for new features will allow us to better test them and do better quality control. If there is further interest in continuing the discussion on the release process/versioning, please create a new thread so we can discuss it and hammer it down. Best regards, João Jandre On 9/18/24 11:19, Wei ZHOU wrote: Thanks Byran. I think we will definitely keep the following the plugins - kvm, vmware, xenserver, simulator - ovs, vxlan, nsx, tungsten, internal-lb hyperv is not well-maintained, but I prefer to keep it. ovm/ovm3/ucs support could be dropped. for the network plugins, I do not have preferences. good to know that Palo alto is interested. in ACS 4.21 or 4.22, you might see some more VNF improvements (e.g. a provider framework and an implementation) Kind regards, Wei On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 3:25 PM Bryan Tiang wrote: Hi Wei Zhou, We dont use any of the plugins listed, but some do stand out: # HyperV # We dont use it right now,
