btzq commented on issue #137:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider/issues/137#issuecomment-2567958859
Looking forward to v0.6.0! The existing list of backlogs would help greatly
make our lives easier!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
rohityadavcloud commented on issue #137:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider/issues/137#issuecomment-2516446376
Hi @CodeBleu thanks for the message and I understand your interests. our
release plan are on best-efforts basis. Unfortunately 4.20 (GA) took more time
t
CodeBleu commented on issue #137:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider/issues/137#issuecomment-2515517812
the abovve issue that was closed was re-opened as this -
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider/pull/138
--
This is an automated message from
I personally really need the service offering stuff working and in the next
release as soon as possible. :crossed_fingers:
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-893280605
@onitake @joschi36 David has started a vote thread here -
https://markmail.org/message/nehouswgefdxe3kj Please help test the RC and vote.
Hopefully, we'll see our f
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-893280605
@onitake @joschi36 David has started a vote thread here -
https://markmail.org/message/nehouswgefdxe3kj Please help test the RC and vote.
Hopefully, we'll see our f
rhtyd closed issue #16:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: de
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-891805497
Discussed with @davidjumani the first two PRs are merged and
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5254 is in a different repository
which will be tracked under
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-890747105
@onitake @joschi36 Can you review the related PRs ? Thanks
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-889919827
Tested, works as expected. Will cut an RC next week and a release once :
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/35
https://github.c
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-889909769
Thanks @onitake please advise if the current build/main is stable to cut RC
cc @davidjumani
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respo
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-887791213
+1 to release.
I'll take a look at it @rhtyd .
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to Gi
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-887231506
@davidjumani I've created/pushed latest build to
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/tags?page=1&ordering=last_updated
When you've
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-887228952
+1, if @onitake and @joschi36 don't respond, I would say let's do some basic
smoke-testing to ensure it is working and cut RC.
--
This is an automated message fro
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-887220783
Ping @rhtyd @onitake @joschi36 shall I take it as an overwhelmingly yes ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the mess
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-882205915
@onitake @joschi36 @rhtyd Since there are no more issues / PRs for v1.0,
Shall we cut a release ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Servi
joschi36 commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-843172857
@rhtyd I have tested the release, and it seems working.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-843063679
@rhtyd Your script pushes the source tarballs to a Subversion repository -
is that standard practice in the Apache foundation?
I'd thought that nobody uses Subv
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-839507920
+1 for co-RM and maintaining with @onitake and @joschi36
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log o
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-838383420
As the next steps, I've created a script that will help perform source
releases (copied from other ACS repos):
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-pr
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-836980447
@onitake @joschi36 since this project is under ASF now, a committer or PMC
member has right to publish source tarball and to dockerhub. I'll work with you
both of y
joschi36 commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-836442553
What's the status here now?
Can we create the release now?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-825485505
Oh, I just noticed something incorrect in the readme:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/blame/master/README.md#L23
"DeamonSet" is actuall
onitake edited a comment on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-825478426
+1 for releasing 1.0.0.
One nitpick: Maybe change
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/blob/master/deployment.yaml#L146
to `imag
onitake edited a comment on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-825478426
+1 for releasing 1.0.0.
One nitpick: Maybe change
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/blob/master/deployment.yaml#L146
to `imag
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-825478426
I'm also for releasing 1.0.0.
One nitpick: Maybe change
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/blob/master/deployment.yaml#L146
to `image
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-824762383
+1
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specifi
joschi36 commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-824703342
I think we can release 1.0.0 now.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
UR
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-824700524
@joschi36 @onitake @davidjumani - I see all PRs merged now, do we have
anything outstanding for 1.0 release?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git S
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-822971821
+1 for this release. It'll be good to get an official release out to get
wider feedback and then decide how to proceed
--
This is an automated message from
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-822966802
Hi @joschi36 thanks, we've
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider for releases and
builds, I can help with release effort.
--
This is an
joschi36 edited a comment on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-817843326
Hi @rhtyd
For myself I would like to merge #25 to the release.
Maybe @davidjumani has interest in adding #24 and #22 to the release as well?
joschi36 commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-817843326
Hi @rafaelweingartner
For myself I would like to merge #25 to the release.
Maybe @davidjumani has interest in adding #24 and #22 to the release as w
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-817821132
Sorry @rhtyd I haven't had much time to look at the the k8s provider lately.
Could you coordinate with @joschi36 instead?
I'll gladly contribute code when
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-817104923
Ping @onitake (work on next release) ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-799076855
+1 Tested and working on v1.16+
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-797440578
Ping @onitake cc @davidjumani @gsirett
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-781929043
I checked there no outstanding issues/PR on the v1.0 milestone -
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/milestone/1
-
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-781928501
@onitake re-ping, any plans on helping with a release? What PRs should we
fix? Unfortunately, I don't know how to use/test this.
--
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-703755470
@davidjumani Yes, please go ahead!
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To r
davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-703592062
@onitake I can look into
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/20 if you're
not already on it
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-702603951
Going through all the issues, there is another thing we might want to
consider, but I'm not sure if it should be done for 1.0:
We're building against an old
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-702596507
@rhtyd I think we are ready to cut a release when CI is set up and the
outstanding issues are fixed (i.e. #19 , #18 , #17 )
The version we're running in pro
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-698153003
ping @onitake - pl advise whenever it's ready for the next release? Thanks
This is an auto
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-698153003
ping @onitake - pl advise whenever it's ready for the next release? Thanks
This is an auto
rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-689457837
Ping - @onitake any update on this, how can the community help?
This is an automated message from t
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-628787808
It may also be a good idea to look at what others are doing:
https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/cloud-providers/
--
onitake commented on issue #16:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-628783822
Thank you, @rhtyd !
IMHO, testing should largely be done through unit tests.
At the moment, there are only a few of them, and they depend on a working
Cl
.
- timeline for the next release
- milestone, release management
This is largely something that's not clear, any takes - @onitake maybe?
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, p
We are wrapping up 4.4.4. I am assuming there is a need for a 4.5.2
but want some confirmation in response to this. If we don't have extra
blockers we should be able to release it within a week.
next up is 4.6.0. :o
anybody got some input on the release process we should follow? And
voluntering t
Hi Lucian,
So, I’ve started a voting thread for the release. You may find the candidate
artifacts here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/cloudmonkey-5.2.0/
If all goes well we would release it on Friday and party :)
Cheers.
On 19-Aug-2014, at 3:20 pm, Nux! wrote:
> Rohit,
>
Rohit,
That might just do it. Is this feature available in the new version already?
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Rohit Yadav"
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> How about I introduce a way to sneek in host p
Hi,
I think we’re ready to do next release of cloudmonkey, please go ahead and test
out cloudmonkey using latest master. Please go through the changelog and advise
on the compatibility issues.
The wiki docs were updated, this notes the new multiple profiles feature:
https://cwiki.apache.org
ith different
servers. Will this solve your problem?
Cheers.
>
> Lucian
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Rohit Yadav"
>> To: "dev"
>
logy!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Rohit Yadav"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2014 12:47:04 PM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Next release of cloudmonkey and feature requests
>
> Hi,
>
> The current version of cloudmonkey 5.1.0 h
Hi,
The current version of cloudmonkey 5.1.0 has couple of bugs that I had fixed in
last couple of days, and for past couple of days I’m refactoring and enhancing
it and will start a voting thread for a bugfix release.
I’m also thinking of introducing python plugin support so people can write
On May 14, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, John Burwell wrote:
>
>> Chip,
>>
>> After some further discussion about this issue on IRC, Alex and I
>> determined that system VM clock drift issue not only breaks S3, but has
>> other significant impacts that meri
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, John Burwell wrote:
> Chip,
>
> After some further discussion about this issue on IRC, Alex and I
> determined that system VM clock drift issue not only breaks S3, but has
> other significant impacts that merit it being a blocker for 4.1 (e.g.
> timestamps of files writte
Chip,
After some further discussion about this issue on IRC, Alex and I determined
that system VM clock drift issue not only breaks S3, but has other significant
impacts that merit it being a blocker for 4.1 (e.g. timestamps of files written
by the SSVM being incorrect, log file correlation dif
Chip,
The source of the problem appears to be clock drift between the SSVM and S3 per
following stack trace:
2013-05-14 06:51:55,400 DEBUG [cloud.utils.S3Utils] (agentRequest-Handler-3:)
Putting directory
/mnt/SecStorage/93fd0cb0-033b-3248-bcd0-ef6d460635ef/template/tmpl/1/5 in S3
bucket jsb-
Chip,
I am looking into the issue now. There is a failure when the S3 upload
template command is issued. I working to determine whether or not the cause is
environmental or code.
Thanks,
-John
On May 14, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have a clear bug list (blocke
Hi all,
We have a clear bug list (blockers and critical) for 4.1.0. I'm going
to cut a new release candidate tonight.
If there are *any* outstanding issues known, now's the time to raise
them.
(I'm specifically looking for an ACK from jburwell here, since he
mentioned a possible S3 feature issu
r.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>
> Joe thanks for bringing this up and noting that the subject may not have got
> everyone's attention. I will start a separate thread on 4 month v/s 6 month
>
> Animesh
>
> > -Original Mes
9 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013, at 04:50 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Based on the community discussions of having 4 month cadence I am
> > pro
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013, at 04:50 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> Based on the community discussions of having 4 month cadence I am
> proposing the following schedule:
We seem to have gone off the rails into a 4-month vs. 6-month
discussion. It's been a week since the original schedule discussion
sta
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:41 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Will Chan wrote:
&g
a
> release early in the cycle (at least for future releases)? Having a time
> window between each release where we actually plan for the next release.
> Discussions include - direction of the project, what big features are to
> be included, rough estimate of the effort, risks and t
my ignorance of project management, but it appears to me we are
>>> talking of managing a release after half way through the cycle. May be
>>> this is orthogonal discussion, but how about taking approach of
>>>planning a
>>> release early in the cycle (at least fo
king approach of
> >>planning a
> >> release early in the cycle (at least for future releases)? Having a time
> >> window between each release where we actually plan for the next release.
> >> Discussions include - direction of the project, what big featur
>> window between each release where we actually plan for the next release.
>> Discussions include - direction of the project, what big features are to
>> be included, rough estimate of the effort, risks and timelines would
>>help
>> in planning releases better? Perhap
a
> release early in the cycle (at least for future releases)? Having a time
> window between each release where we actually plan for the next release.
> Discussions include - direction of the project, what big features are to
> be included, rough estimate of the effort, risks and t
between each release where we actually plan for the next release.
Discussions include - direction of the project, what big features are to
be included, rough estimate of the effort, risks and timelines would help
in planning releases better? Perhaps we should use Collab conferences for
this purpose
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:29:46PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> > I disagree. You might take a hit in the short term as people get
> > acclimated, but I've accelerated multiple projects' output by being
> > exceptionally focused on automated quality checks (unit, integration,
> > regression, etc...
;>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Will Chan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:22 AM
>>
t;
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:22 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org
>>&g
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013, at 08:41 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> Having seen the point releases twice now, which still need upgrade
> testing, release notes, etc I don't get the feeling that the
> 'overhread' referred to above is the problem. Joe may disagree with
> me.
I do, to a degree.
- Point release
ip.child...@sungard.com]
>>> > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:22 AM
>>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> > Cc: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>>> >
>>> >
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> > Cc: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I want t
t; > Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to call out my concern on technical debt we have accumulated so
> > far.
> > >
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:22 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>
> On Th
>
> >
> > I want to call out my concern on technical debt we have accumulated so far.
> >
> > I did an analysis on JIRA bugs yesterday night PST on "Affects
> > Version = 4.1" and created since Dec 2012
> >
> > Total records : 429
> > Resolution Type (Invalid, Duplicate, Cannot reproduce etc.)
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> Based on the community discussions of having 4 month cadence I am proposing
> the following schedule:
>
> =
> 4.2 detailed schedule proposal:
> =
>
>
> 2013-05-31
>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "Marcus Sorensen"
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely
> > > > subjective, but it seemed like from initial 4.1 feature freeze to
> > > > a week or two before the rc was supposed to be cut there was
> >
> > On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "Marcus Sorensen"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely subjective,
> > > but it seemed like from initial 4.1 feature freeze to a week or two
> > > before the rc was supposed to be cut there wasn't much action on bug
> >
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "Marcus Sorensen"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely subjective,
> > > but it seemed like from initial 4.1 featur
>
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "Marcus Sorensen"
> wrote:
>
> > One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely subjective,
> > but it seemed like from initial 4.1 feature freeze to a week or two
> > before the rc was supposed to be cut there wasn't much action on bug
> > fixi
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" wrote:
> One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely subjective, but it
> seemed like from initial 4.1 feature freeze to a week or two before the rc
> was supposed to be cut there wasn't much action on bug fixing. It wasn't
> until t
One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely subjective, but it
seemed like from initial 4.1 feature freeze to a week or two before the rc
was supposed to be cut there wasn't much action on bug fixing. It wasn't
until the deadlines started becoming imminent that people came back to work
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASFCS42] Proposed schedule for our next release
>
> >
> > Looking at that we fixed 217 bugs in rou
>
> Looking at that we fixed 217 bugs in roughly 2 months during 4.1 cycle,
> fixing the backlog of bug will probably take us 2 months. Should we extend
> the 4.2 test cycle by 2 months [Original Schedule: 6/1 - 7/22, Extended
> Schedule: 6/1-9/22] to reduce the technical debt significantly?
Based on the community discussions of having 4 month cadence I am proposing the
following schedule:
=
4.2 detailed schedule proposal:
=
2013-05-31
Feature Freeze
All new feature need to have been merged into master by this date.
91 matches
Mail list logo
