[mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:32 PM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
>Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
>date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a cl
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze date
for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
we have already defined the "project rules" for figuring out what to do.
In out project
+0
If proposed features are completed earlier then we shouldn't wait for 4 weeks.
-Koushik
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:30 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Pushback
+1, but hopefully only those features already proposed are allowed.
In future lets move the code freeze date before the freeze date :), makes
life easier for folks scrambling to get their feature in.
Thanks,
-Nitin
On 04/06/13 10:47 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>+0 - similar concerns as Seba
+0 - similar concerns as Sebastien. I hope that we also don't
introduce any new unproposed features, or architectural changes to 4.2
at the end of the cycle, which this extension still is.
Also - it's probably worth discussing a time based release with
milestones beyond which feature proposals are
+1
-Mice
-Original Message-
From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi [mailto:sateesh.chodapune...@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 12:04 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 [Binding]
Regards,
Sateesh
> -Original Message-
>
+1 [Binding]
Regards,
Sateesh
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:cloudst...@aprateek.com]
> Sent: 04 June 2013 09:23
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> +1 [binding].
>
> -abhi
>
&
+1 [binding].
-abhi
On 04/06/13 6:43 AM, "Hiroaki KAWAI" wrote:
>+1 because "4.2 will be delayed because 4.1 have been delayed"
>makes sense to me.
>
>Basically, time based release focuses on time only, not quality or
>feature. That's the nature of time based release, IMHO.
>I'm not voting +1 f
+1 because "4.2 will be delayed because 4.1 have been delayed"
makes sense to me.
Basically, time based release focuses on time only, not quality or
feature. That's the nature of time based release, IMHO.
I'm not voting +1 for new feature, and at the same time, I
feel unfair to vote -1 for blocki
tional changes for this four weeks. I believe this proposal will improve
> the quality of 4.2 on its planned release date as a result.
>
> -kevin
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8
dstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze date
> for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
> we have already defined the "project rules" for figur
Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:00 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>
>> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
>> date for 4.2.0 [1],
+1 [binding]
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Chan [mailto:will.c...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 11:08 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> +1 [Binding]
>
> It looks like there
+1 [binding]
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:32 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
>
> +1 to move feature freeze da
-1.
Will
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:00 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature
+1[binding] on pushing back feature freeze date.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:00 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> Following our discu
y
>vote is to agree with the extension.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:32 AM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
>
>+1 to move
On Fri, May 31, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Please respond with one of the following:
>
> +1 : change the plan as listed above
> +/-0 : no strong opinion, but leaning + or -
> -1 : do not change the plan
>
> This vote will remain open until Tuesday morning US eastern time.
-1 do no
in to 4.2. So my vote is to
agree with the extension.
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:32 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 to move feature freeze date
> -Original Message-
> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:htrippa...@schubergphilis.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:24 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> -1
>
> Extending the release will mean even more f
have to be targeted for 4.3 or beyond.
Thanks
Animesh
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:00 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> Following
+1 (not sure if my vote counts for anything since I'm not a committer)
To me it seems that many people spent a lot more time on 4.1 than expected,
so I think an extra 2 - 4 weeks for 4.2 would make sense.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00 AM,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
> date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
> we have already defined the "project rules" for figuring out what to do.
> In out project b
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Musayev, Ilya wrote:
> How would this vote work? Is it consensus that wins?
Consensus would win if we had it. However, we don't, thus we have a vote.
+1 to extend the feature freeze date.
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:00 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 05:04:54PM +, Musayev, Ilya wrote:
> How would this vote work? Is it consensus that wins?
As stated below:
> > > > 3.4.2. Release Plan
> > > >
> > > > Defines the timetable and work items for a release. The plan also
> > > > nominates a Release Manager.
> > > >
> > > >
How would this vote work? Is it consensus that wins?
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:47 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> Reminde
Reminder to please VOTE here. This vote will close tomorrow, and your
opinion counts.
-chip
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00:21AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
> date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus.
Date:
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
>
> -0
>
> Change to -0 as I suggest to wait for the merge of existing review requests in
> days (48 or 72 hours).
>
> -Wei
>
>
> 2013/5/31 Wei ZHOU
>
>
+1 for freeze request for 1-2 weeks. We've developed advanced password
management features for IsWest and would like to merge it in as per Claytons
approval.
Original message
From: Wei ZHOU
Date:
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Fe
-0
Change to -0 as I suggest to wait for the merge of existing review
requests in days (48 or 72 hours).
-Wei
2013/5/31 Wei ZHOU
> -1
> Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed.
> From now, we'd better donot accept new feature review requests,and
> create 4.2 branch
+1. I know we are time based, but I worry that the 4.1 delay is a sign that
we've simply got too much to do. 4 weeks seems like a good middle ground
between the 8 weeks lost in 4.1 and no extension at all.
On May 31, 2013 11:37 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal"
wrote:
> -0
>
> I hope that if it passes, it w
-0
I hope that if it passes, it won't become a habit!
On 5/31/13 8:00 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
>date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
>we have already defined the "project rules" for f
-1
Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed.
>From now, we'd better donot accept new feature review requests,and
create 4.2 branch after committing existed requests in short time.
-Wei
2013/5/31, Chip Childers :
> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the
+1 for reasons state on the previous proposal thread.
On May 31, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
> date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
> we have already defined the "project
Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
we have already defined the "project rules" for figuring out what to do.
In out project by-laws [2], we have defined a "release plan" decision as
follo
36 matches
Mail list logo
