Hi Everyone,
Just wanted to share that Kubernetes Project is surveying its users and
contributors to determine if the newer schedule of releasing 3 times per
year was optimal. If you would like to share your feedback on this topic,
please do so by filling out the release cadence survey linked
> -Original Message-
> From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:rajani.karut...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:46 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Release cadence
>
> The primary problem I feel is that we dont plan our releases.(I am fairly new
> here and I m
[1] https://trello.com/b/LCDud1Nd/brackets
~Rajani
On 17-Mar-2014, at 10:22 pm, John Kinsella wrote:
> I am in agreement with my radical CloudStack brother.
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 9:42 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>
>> The RC7 vote thread contained a lot of discussion a
I am in agreement with my radical CloudStack brother.
On Mar 13, 2014, at 9:42 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> The RC7 vote thread contained a lot of discussion around release
> cadence, and I figured I'd move that to a thread that has a better
> subject so there is better visi
rchitect
> S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: @CloudyAngus
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 13 March 2014 16:42
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Release cadence
>
> The RC7
so everyone can
see where we stand during the RC process.
Regards,
Paul Angus
Cloud Architect
S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: @CloudyAngus
paul.an...@shapeblue.com
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: 13 March 2014 16:42
To: dev@cloudstack
age-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:34 PM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: Release cadence
>>
>> I agree that we can't move to our end goal in on go. But I disagree that
>> we should go on with b
AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Release cadence
The RC7 vote thread contained a lot of discussion around release cadence, and I
figured I'd move that to a thread that has a better subject so there is better
visibility to list participants who don't read every thread.
When
essage-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:34 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Release cadence
>
> I agree that we can't move to our end goal in on go. But I disagree that
> we should go on with business as usual right no
--Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:34 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Release cadence
I agree that we can't move to our end goal in on go. But I disagree that we
should go on with business as usual right now. baby steps but ne
; >> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >> > I wanted to add a little comment/question in general
> about
> >>> our
> >>> >> >> release
> >>> >> >> >> >> > process:
&g
;> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Marcus
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> The overlap is simply a byproduct
ere's a way around it. It's a good point though, that
>> >> essentially
>> >> >> >> >> the window is 1 month shorter than I think was intended.
>> Better
>> >> >> >> >> testing will help th
that, however, with the point being that we
> >> >> >> >> shouldn't be doing a ton of work to make the release branch
> >> stable.
> >> >> It
> >> >> >> >> should push the majority of the work back into the pre-branch
> >> st
e pre-branch
>> stage.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > I wanted to add a little comment/question in general about our
>>
gt; >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > I wanted to add a little comment/question in general about our
> >> release
> >> >> >> > process:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Right now we typically
have a one-month overlap between releases.
>> That
>> >> >> > being the case, if you are focusing on the current release until
>> it is
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> > the door, you effectively lose a month of development for the
>
process:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Right now we typically have a one-month overlap between releases.
> That
> >> >> > being the case, if you are focusing on the current release until
> it is
> >> >> out
> >> >> >
; being the case, if you are focusing on the current release until it is
>> >> out
>> >> > the door, you effectively lose a month of development for the future
>> >> > release. It might be tempting during this one-month time period to
>> focus
>> >> &
door, you effectively lose a month of development for the future
> >> > release. It might be tempting during this one-month time period to
> focus
> >> > instead on the future release and leave the current release alone.
> >> >
> >> > Would it mak
lopment for the future
>> > release. It might be tempting during this one-month time period to focus
>> > instead on the future release and leave the current release alone.
>> >
>> > Would it make sense to keep a four-month release cycle, but not have an
>> >
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:42:26PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> Radical proposition:
>
> Because we have two problems, of different nature, we are in a
> difficult situation. This is a possible solution, and I'd appreciate
> you reading and considering it. Feedback is welcome. I propose that
> af
; > Would it make sense to keep a four-month release cycle, but not have an
> > overlapping month of two releases?
> >
> > Just a thought
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> >
> >> The RC7 vote thread contained
on the future release and leave the current release alone.
>
> Would it make sense to keep a four-month release cycle, but not have an
> overlapping month of two releases?
>
> Just a thought
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>
>> The R
, David Nalley wrote:
> The RC7 vote thread contained a lot of discussion around release
> cadence, and I figured I'd move that to a thread that has a better
> subject so there is better visibility to list participants who don't
> read every thread.
>
> When I look at thi
The RC7 vote thread contained a lot of discussion around release
cadence, and I figured I'd move that to a thread that has a better
subject so there is better visibility to list participants who don't
read every thread.
When I look at things schedule wise, I see our aims and our realit
26 matches
Mail list logo
