Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-08 Thread ilya
Hi Guys, Gave this thread a read - sorry i'm a bit late on this topic. I agree with what Will, John and Rohit proposed. I also understand Rajani's hesitancy - we dont want master to become a zoo. In summary, i think the proposed workflow should avoid the zoo case and give us structure that will

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Rajani Karuturi
; >>> auditability > >>>> and comparing what exists in one branch vs another. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/tools/git/git-pr > >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/tools/ > &

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Will Stevens
//github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/tools/ > >>> git/git-fwd-merge > >>>> > >>>> This is my two cents anyway... > >>>> > >>>> *Will STEVENS* > >>>> Lead Developer > >>>> > >>>> *Clo

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread John Burwell
t; On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Rohit Yadav >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I disagree with having only RMs to merge PRs when we're not in freeze. >>> In >>>>> general we've implicitly honoured this behaviour but it was

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Will Stevens
gt; > practice > > >> and further it's understandable that they may not be able to volunteer > > >> enough time and effort to get the PRs sorted. > > >> > > >> > > >> Over past months this and similar practices have killed our commit and >

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Rajani Karuturi
ur commit and > >> development momentum, and I think it's not a healthy practice for our > >> community to engage in further. Instead, we can have committers (and in > >> future maybe bots) to merge a PR if they have 2 LGTMs, no objections and > >> test results from both Travis (s

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Will Stevens
Yes, I agree with this. CVEs need to be handled in security@ and will be added to the branches manually once they have been agreed upon there, so no PRs are needed for them. I also agree that exceptions can be made for version changes in POMs and such because those are scripted changes which are

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread John Burwell
Will, My understanding of the release principles is that all changes must have a PR with the exception of CVE fixes. Since we must accept CVE fixes in private, the 2 LGTM rule is applied on the security@ mailing list and on private JIRA security ticket. I would also say that the release commi

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Will Stevens
dops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Rohit Yadav > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I disagree with having only RMs to merge PRs when we're not in freeze. > >> In > >>>> general we've impli

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread John Burwell
rstandable that they may not be able to volunteer >>>> enough time and effort to get the PRs sorted. >>>> >>>> >>>> Over past months this and similar practices have killed our commit and >>>> development momentum, and I think it's not a healthy

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Will Stevens
> >> community to engage in further. Instead, we can have committers (and in > >> future maybe bots) to merge a PR if they have 2 LGTMs, no objections and > >> test results from both Travis (simulator) and Bubble/BVT/Trillian (tests > >> against at least one and

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread John Burwell
simulator) and Bubble/BVT/Trillian (tests >> against at least one and ideally all three hypervisors - KVM, Xen and >> VMware). >> >> >> Regards. >> >> >> From: Rajani Karuturi >> Sent: 03 August 2016 13:43:54 >&g

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Will Stevens
bjections and > test results from both Travis (simulator) and Bubble/BVT/Trillian (tests > against at least one and ideally all three hypervisors - KVM, Xen and > VMware). > > > Regards. > > > From: Rajani Karuturi > Sent: 03 August 2

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-04 Thread Rohit Yadav
en and VMware). Regards. From: Rajani Karuturi Sent: 03 August 2016 13:43:54 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.10.0 release ouch.. looks like my email client stripped all the new lines. Re-sending from webmail Hi All, These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from anoth

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-03 Thread Rajani Karuturi
ouch.. looks like my email client stripped all the new lines. Re-sending from webmail Hi All, These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from another thread by John Burwell) * Development (master open to features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 - 11 September 2016 * Testing: 12 - 18 Se

Re: 4.10.0 release

2016-08-03 Thread Erik Weber
A newline or two wouldn't hurt, this is pretty hard to read tbh. -- Erik On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > Hi All,These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from > another thread by John Burwell)* Development (master open to > features and defect fixes): 1 Aug