You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> on 2013/11/14 09:51:20 UTC
[ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review, probably followed by a revamp (?).
Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade paths comment on it ?
Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and fix the RN for 4.2.1.
-abhi
RN= https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=blob;f=release-notes/en-US/Release_Notes.xml;h=7b28e9f3c9c1a3272ee0ff592e5adcb6df91e893;hb=HEAD
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
Yes - no rule. That said, there is common sense. Releasing without
docs doesn't make a lot of sense. I am still trying to understand the
urgency of releasing.
--David
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> There is absolutely no ASF rule or policy on this. It's up to
> projects to decide things like "what's in the release".
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't imagine there not being some guideline or rule about providing
>> documentation in the apache foundation. Can we even release without docs,
>> not that we should. My idea was that we release on wednesday with the docs
>> in rc state. Even that is, admitted, dubious.
>>
>> mobile biligual spell checker used
>> Op 14 nov. 2013 22:50 schreef "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us>:
>>
>>> I agree - announcing a release prior to docs availability hurts the
>>> project because users fail in installation and upgrades.
>>> The gate in my mind is docs readiness - thats an integral part of the
>>> release process, even if the repo is separate.
>>>
>>> Animesh, whats your reason to want to push this out earlier?
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
>>> > during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>> > I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>> > shape.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>> > <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> >> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>> >>
>>> >> Animesh
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>> >>>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>> >>>etcŠthen testŠ.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>-sebastien
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>> >>><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>> >>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>> >>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>> >>>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>> >>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>> >>>>paths comment on it ?
>>> >>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>> >>>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> -abhi
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>> >>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>>> >>>>=re
>>> >>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>>> >>>>.2
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
There is absolutely no ASF rule or policy on this. It's up to
projects to decide things like "what's in the release".
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't imagine there not being some guideline or rule about providing
> documentation in the apache foundation. Can we even release without docs,
> not that we should. My idea was that we release on wednesday with the docs
> in rc state. Even that is, admitted, dubious.
>
> mobile biligual spell checker used
> Op 14 nov. 2013 22:50 schreef "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us>:
>
>> I agree - announcing a release prior to docs availability hurts the
>> project because users fail in installation and upgrades.
>> The gate in my mind is docs readiness - thats an integral part of the
>> release process, even if the repo is separate.
>>
>> Animesh, whats your reason to want to push this out earlier?
>>
>> --David
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
>> > during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>> > I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>> > shape.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> > <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Animesh
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>> >>>
>> >>>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>> >>>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>> >>>etcŠthen testŠ.
>> >>>
>> >>>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>> >>>
>> >>>-sebastien
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>> >>><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>> >>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>> >>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>> >>>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
>> >>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>> >>>>paths comment on it ?
>> >>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>> >>>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -abhi
>> >>>>
>> >>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>> >>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>> >>>>=re
>> >>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>> >>>>.2
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
I can't imagine there not being some guideline or rule about providing
documentation in the apache foundation. Can we even release without docs,
not that we should. My idea was that we release on wednesday with the docs
in rc state. Even that is, admitted, dubious.
mobile biligual spell checker used
Op 14 nov. 2013 22:50 schreef "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us>:
> I agree - announcing a release prior to docs availability hurts the
> project because users fail in installation and upgrades.
> The gate in my mind is docs readiness - thats an integral part of the
> release process, even if the repo is separate.
>
> Animesh, whats your reason to want to push this out earlier?
>
> --David
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
> > during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
> > I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
> > shape.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
> >>
> >> Animesh
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
> >>>
> >>>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
> >>>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
> >>>etcŠthen testŠ.
> >>>
> >>>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
> >>>
> >>>-sebastien
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
> >>><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
> >>>> To: CloudStack Dev
> >>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
> >>>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
> >>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
> >>>>paths comment on it ?
> >>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
> >>>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> -abhi
> >>>>
> >>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
> >>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
> >>>>=re
> >>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
> >>>>.2
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
RE: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
It will still take us couple of day to work on release announcement if the VOTE passes. Can we finish up docs in that timeframe?
Thanks
Animesh
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:50 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Sebastien Goasguen; Alok Kumar Singh
Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
I agree - announcing a release prior to docs availability hurts the project because users fail in installation and upgrades.
The gate in my mind is docs readiness - thats an integral part of the release process, even if the repo is separate.
Animesh, whats your reason to want to push this out earlier?
--David
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
> shape.
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>
>> Animesh
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>
>>>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>
>>>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>
>>>-sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>review, probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>paths comment on it ?
>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree
>>>>;f
>>>>=re
>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads
>>>>/4
>>>>.2
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
I agree - announcing a release prior to docs availability hurts the
project because users fail in installation and upgrades.
The gate in my mind is docs readiness - thats an integral part of the
release process, even if the repo is separate.
Animesh, whats your reason to want to push this out earlier?
--David
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
> shape.
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>
>> Animesh
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>
>>>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>
>>>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>
>>>-sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>paths comment on it ?
>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>>>>=re
>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>>>>.2
>>>>
>>>
>>
RE: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchilders@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 6:28 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes document under control. I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate.
Animesh> Yes we followed the same approach for 4.2 as I was pointed out to me that there was a prior discussion on keeping things in release notes. I had added link to JIRA filter for known issues and fixed issues [1].
Another thought to remind folks about in this thread:
Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote.
Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before* announcing 4.2.1.
Make sense?
Animesh> Yes thanks for calling it out clearly. I will update the Release Management page on wiki for future reference.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/rkzzyg5i26mshpbt
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
> CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
> Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
>
> -abhi
>
> On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Abihnandan,
>>
>>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
>>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
>>be prepended in more readable form afaic.
>>
>>Daan
>>
>>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I
>>> will list down some important fixes.
>>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>>>
>>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
>>> important ones.
>>>
>>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>>>
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>>><Ab...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
>>>>Not
>>>>make a release)
>>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are
>>>>also of acceptable quality.
>>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>>>
>>>>-abhi
>>>>
>>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>>>specially the upgrade section of it.
>>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a
>>>>>>filter is good enough but it should be pretty easy to get the
>>>>>>listing in the docs itself.
>>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains
>>>>>> or issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade
>>>>>instructions committed is bad.
>>>>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
>>>>>release of the code.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I
>>>>>> will think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
>>>>>explicitly.
>>>>>We should keep doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to
>>>>>>wait at least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their
>>>>>>effort is highly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can
>>>>>all look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing,
>>>>>upgrade instructions etc...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
>>>>>>>right, I think I proposed earlier this thread to release after
>>>>>>>the doc hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about
>>>>>>>it I think as no one commented on this strategy. Would that be
>>>>>>>acceptable to you all (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
>>>>>>>have to be as stable as the release. We should allow for
>>>>>>>improving the docs on a release if needed. The net result of
>>>>>>>what I am proposing is that there will be a release and a docs
>>>>>>>rc. This is what the splitting of of the docs was about in my
>>>>>>>view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
>>>>>>>this is what the hurry is about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>>><ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an
>>>>>>>>RC that does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade
>>>>>>>>path documented (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs).
>>>>>>>>Separate repo of the docs or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
>>>>>>>>This
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases
>>>>>>>>(explicit
>>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for
>>>>>>>>4.2.1 running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>>>>http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>>>master and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>>><ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing
>>>>>>>>>+ voting during doc finalization. If we announce before docs,
>>>>>>>>>it hurts us.
>>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs
>>>>>>>>>in poor shape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have
>>>>>>>>>>it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in
>>>>>>>>>>collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out
>>>>>>>>>>separately anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
>>>>>>>>>>>dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are
>>>>>>>>>>>good, upgrade path etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require
>>>>>>>>>>>>a review, probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
>>>>>>>>>>>>upgrade paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>snippets and fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.gi
>>>>>>>>>>>>t;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>>tr
>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=re
>>>>>>>>>>>>fs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
Yes - it's hard to maintain, and it's yet another place to point
people to. Let's deprecate it in favor of decent RN.
--David
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes
> document under control. I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for
> this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate.
>
> Another thought to remind folks about in this thread:
>
> Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in
> the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote.
>
> Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release
> vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs
> should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before*
> announcing 4.2.1.
>
> Make sense?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
>> CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
>> Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Abihnandan,
>>>
>>>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
>>>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
>>>be prepended in more readable form afaic.
>>>
>>>Daan
>>>
>>>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
>>>> list down some important fixes.
>>>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>>>>
>>>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
>>>> important ones.
>>>>
>>>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>>>><Ab...@citrix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
>>>>>Not
>>>>>make a release)
>>>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
>>>>>of
>>>>>acceptable quality.
>>>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>>>>
>>>>>-abhi
>>>>>
>>>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>>>>specially
>>>>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>>>>>good
>>>>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>>>>>itself.
>>>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>>>>> issues here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>>>>>committed is bad.
>>>>>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
>>>>>>release
>>>>>>of the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
>>>>>>explicitly.
>>>>>>We should keep doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait
>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their
>>>>>>>effort is
>>>>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>>>>>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>>>>>instructions etc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
>>>>>>>>right, I
>>>>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think
>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you
>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the
>>>>>>>>docs
>>>>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>>>><ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC
>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the
>>>>>>>>>docs
>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
>>>>>>>>>This
>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>>>>master
>>>>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>>>><ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>>>>>voting
>>>>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in
>>>>>>>>>>poor
>>>>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>dedicate a
>>>>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>review,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>tr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
×2
mobile biligual spell checker used
Op 15 nov. 2013 15:27 schreef "Chip Childers" <ch...@apache.org>:
> IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes
> document under control. I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for
> this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate.
>
> Another thought to remind folks about in this thread:
>
> Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in
> the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote.
>
> Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release
> vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs
> should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before*
> announcing 4.2.1.
>
> Make sense?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
> > CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
> > Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
> >
> > -abhi
> >
> > On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Abihnandan,
> >>
> >>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
> >>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
> >>be prepended in more readable form afaic.
> >>
> >>Daan
> >>
> >>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
> >><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I
> will
> >>> list down some important fixes.
> >>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
> >>>
> >>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
> >>> important ones.
> >>>
> >>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -abhi
> >>>
> >>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
> >>><Ab...@citrix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
> >>>>Not
> >>>>make a release)
> >>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
> >>>>of
> >>>>acceptable quality.
> >>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
> >>>>
> >>>>-abhi
> >>>>
> >>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> >>>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
> >>>>>>specially
> >>>>>> the upgrade section of it.
> >>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter
> is
> >>>>>>good
> >>>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
> >>>>>>itself.
> >>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
> >>>>>> issues here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
> >>>>>committed is bad.
> >>>>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
> >>>>>release
> >>>>>of the code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I
> will
> >>>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
> >>>>>explicitly.
> >>>>>We should keep doing that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait
> >>>>>>at
> >>>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
> >>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their
> >>>>>>effort is
> >>>>>> highly appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
> >>>>>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
> >>>>>instructions etc...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -abhi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
> >>>>>>>right, I
> >>>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
> >>>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think
> >>>>>>>as
> >>>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you
> >>>>>>>all
> >>>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
> >>>>>>>have
> >>>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the
> >>>>>>>docs
> >>>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is
> >>>>>>>that
> >>>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting
> of
> >>>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
> >>>>>>>this
> >>>>>>> is what the hurry is about
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Daan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
> >>>>>>><ru...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC
> >>>>>>>>that
> >>>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path
> documented
> >>>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the
> >>>>>>>>docs
> >>>>>>>>or
> >>>>>>>> not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
> >>>>>>>>This
> >>>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases
> (explicit
> >>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need
> consistency.
> >>>>>>>>What
> >>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
> >>>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
> >>>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
> >>>>>>>>master
> >>>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -sebastien
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
> >>>>>>>><ch...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
> >>>>>>>>>voting
> >>>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts
> us.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in
> >>>>>>>>>poor
> >>>>>>>>> shape.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
> >>>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
> >>>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
> >>>>>>>>>>anyway.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Animesh
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
> >>>>>>>>>>>dedicate a
> >>>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade
> path
> >>>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>review,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
> >>>>>>>>>>>>upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments,
> snippets
> >>>>>>>>>>>>and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>tr
> >>>>>>>>>>>>e
> >>>>>>>>>>>>e;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> f
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =re
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
> >>>>>>>>>>>>ea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>s/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes
document under control. I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for
this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate.
Another thought to remind folks about in this thread:
Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in
the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote.
Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release
vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs
should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before*
announcing 4.2.1.
Make sense?
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
<Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
> CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
> Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
>
> -abhi
>
> On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Abihnandan,
>>
>>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
>>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
>>be prepended in more readable form afaic.
>>
>>Daan
>>
>>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
>>> list down some important fixes.
>>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>>>
>>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
>>> important ones.
>>>
>>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>>>
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>>><Ab...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
>>>>Not
>>>>make a release)
>>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
>>>>of
>>>>acceptable quality.
>>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>>>
>>>>-abhi
>>>>
>>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>>>specially
>>>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>>>>good
>>>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>>>>itself.
>>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>>>> issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>>>>committed is bad.
>>>>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
>>>>>release
>>>>>of the code.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
>>>>>explicitly.
>>>>>We should keep doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait
>>>>>>at
>>>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their
>>>>>>effort is
>>>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>>>>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>>>>instructions etc...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
>>>>>>>right, I
>>>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think
>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you
>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the
>>>>>>>docs
>>>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>>><ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the
>>>>>>>>docs
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
>>>>>>>>This
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>>>master
>>>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>>><ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>>>>voting
>>>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in
>>>>>>>>>poor
>>>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
>>>>>>>>>>>dedicate a
>>>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>>>>review,
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
>>>>>>>>>>>>upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>>tr
>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
> CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
> Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
>
How was it done for 4.1.1 ?
all bugs or just blockers/citricals ?
I know listing 175 tickets seems like a lot, I am just arguing for consistency and automation.
> -abhi
>
> On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Abihnandan,
>>
>> Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
>> this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
>> be prepended in more readable form afaic.
>>
>> Daan
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
>> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
>>> list down some important fixes.
>>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>>>
>>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
>>> important ones.
>>>
>>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>>>
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>>> <Ab...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
>>>> Not
>>>> make a release)
>>>> till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
>>>> of
>>>> acceptable quality.
>>>> As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>> On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>>> specially
>>>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>>>> issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>>>> committed is bad.
>>>>> Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
>>>>> release
>>>>> of the code.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
>>>>> explicitly.
>>>>> We should keep doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their
>>>>>> effort is
>>>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>>>> look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>>>> instructions etc...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
>>>>>>> right, I
>>>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the
>>>>>>> docs
>>>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>>> <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the
>>>>>>>> docs
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>>> <ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in
>>>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
>>>>>>>>>>> dedicate a
>>>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>>>> review,
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>> tr
>>>>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>>>>> e;
>>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>> ea
>>>>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>>>>> s/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in
CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it.
Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
-abhi
On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Abihnandan,
>
>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
>be prepended in more readable form afaic.
>
>Daan
>
>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
>> list down some important fixes.
>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>>
>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
>> important ones.
>>
>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>>
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>><Ab...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
>>>Not
>>>make a release)
>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
>>>of
>>>acceptable quality.
>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>>
>>>-abhi
>>>
>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>>specially
>>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>>>good
>>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>>>itself.
>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>>> issues here.
>>>>
>>>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>>>committed is bad.
>>>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
>>>>release
>>>>of the code.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
>>>>explicitly.
>>>>We should keep doing that.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait
>>>>>at
>>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their
>>>>>effort is
>>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>>>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>>>instructions etc...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
>>>>>>right, I
>>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think
>>>>>>as
>>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you
>>>>>>all
>>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
>>>>>>have
>>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the
>>>>>>docs
>>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is
>>>>>>that
>>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
>>>>>>this
>>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>><ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the
>>>>>>>docs
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
>>>>>>>This
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>>master
>>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>><ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>>>voting
>>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in
>>>>>>>>poor
>>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
>>>>>>>>>>dedicate a
>>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>>>review,
>>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
>>>>>>>>>>>upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>tr
>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Abihnandan,
Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think
this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still
be prepended in more readable form afaic.
Daan
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
<Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
> list down some important fixes.
> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>
> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
> important ones.
>
> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>
>
> -abhi
>
> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" <Ab...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e. Not
>>make a release)
>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also of
>>acceptable quality.
>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>
>>-abhi
>>
>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>specially
>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>
>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>>good
>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>>itself.
>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>
>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>> issues here.
>>>
>>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>>committed is bad.
>>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release
>>>of the code.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly.
>>>We should keep doing that.
>>>
>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>
>>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>>instructions etc...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>
>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs
>>>>>>or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This
>>>>>>is
>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>What
>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>master
>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>>voting
>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>>review,
>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tr
>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/hea
>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
Ok, will make a exhaustive listing and see if it can be automated for
future releases.
On 15/11/13 6:41 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
>> list down some important fixes.
>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>>
>
>I know jira has an api, so you could easily query jira and automatically
>write the list of fixed bugs in the CHANGES file.
>we should automate this:
>
>>>>import requests
>>>>import pprint
>>>>
>>>>r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/filter/123257
>>>>07')
>>>>
>>>>r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/search?jql=pr
>>>>oject+%3D+CLOUDSTACK+AND+type+%3D+Bug+AND+affectedVersion+in+(%224.2.0%
>>>>22,+%224.2%22)+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%224.2.1%22+AND+resolution+!%3D+%22%5
>>>>C%22Unresolved%5C%22%22+ORDER+BY+created+DESC,+priority+DESC,+key+ASC')
>>>> pprint.pprint(r.json)
>
>The ideal process is really that when a bug gets resolved, the person who
>committed the patch to solve the bug should also update the CHANGES file.
>
>
>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
>> important ones.
>>
>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>>
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>><Ab...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e.
>>>Not
>>> make a release)
>>> till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also
>>>of
>>> acceptable quality.
>>> As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>> On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>>> specially
>>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>>> good
>>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>>> itself.
>>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>>> issues here.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>>> committed is bad.
>>>> Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the
>>>>release
>>>> of the code.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS
>>>>explicitly.
>>>> We should keep doing that.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait
>>>>>at
>>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
>>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>>> look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>>> instructions etc...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs,
>>>>>>right, I
>>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think
>>>>>>as
>>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you
>>>>>>all
>>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these
>>>>>>have
>>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the
>>>>>>docs
>>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is
>>>>>>that
>>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think
>>>>>>this
>>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
>>>>>><ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the
>>>>>>>docs
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter.
>>>>>>>This
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>><ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in
>>>>>>>>poor
>>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can
>>>>>>>>>>dedicate a
>>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>>> review,
>>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various
>>>>>>>>>>>upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>tr
>>>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>>>> e;
>>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h
>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>>>> s/
>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
> list down some important fixes.
> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>
I know jira has an api, so you could easily query jira and automatically write the list of fixed bugs in the CHANGES file.
we should automate this:
>>>import requests
>>>import pprint
>>> r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/filter/12325707')
>>> r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/search?jql=project+%3D+CLOUDSTACK+AND+type+%3D+Bug+AND+affectedVersion+in+(%224.2.0%22,+%224.2%22)+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%224.2.1%22+AND+resolution+!%3D+%22%5C%22Unresolved%5C%22%22+ORDER+BY+created+DESC,+priority+DESC,+key+ASC')
>>> pprint.pprint(r.json)
The ideal process is really that when a bug gets resolved, the person who committed the patch to solve the bug should also update the CHANGES file.
> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
> important ones.
>
> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>
>
> -abhi
>
> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" <Ab...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e. Not
>> make a release)
>> till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also of
>> acceptable quality.
>> As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>> specially
>>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>>
>>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>> good
>>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>> itself.
>>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>>
>>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>>> issues here.
>>>
>>> That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>> committed is bad.
>>> Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release
>>> of the code.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly.
>>> We should keep doing that.
>>>
>>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
>>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>> look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>> instructions etc...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>>
>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>> What
>>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>> master
>>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>> review,
>>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tr
>>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>>> e;
>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/hea
>>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>>> s/
>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
list down some important fixes.
Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
important ones.
This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
-abhi
On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" <Ab...@citrix.com>
wrote:
>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e. Not
>make a release)
>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also of
>acceptable quality.
>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
>
>-abhi
>
>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>>specially
>>> the upgrade section of it.
>>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>>
>>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>>good
>>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>>itself.
>>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>>
>>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>>
>>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>>> issues here.
>>
>>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>>committed is bad.
>>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release
>>of the code.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>>
>>
>>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly.
>>We should keep doing that.
>>
>>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
>>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
>>> highly appreciated.
>>
>>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>>instructions etc...
>>
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>>
>>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>>
>>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>>
>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs
>>>>>or
>>>>> not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This
>>>>>is
>>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>>What
>>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
>>>>>master
>>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>>
>>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>>
>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>>voting
>>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>>>>> shape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately
>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>>review,
>>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tr
>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/hea
>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e. Not
make a release)
till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also of
acceptable quality.
As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
-abhi
On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs
>>specially
>> the upgrade section of it.
>> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>>
>> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is
>>good
>> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs
>>itself.
>> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>>
>> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>>
>> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
>> issues here.
>
>That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions
>committed is bad.
>Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release
>of the code.
>
>>
>> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
>> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>>
>
>I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly.
>We should keep doing that.
>
>> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
>> least till Wednesday to get these right.
>> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
>> highly appreciated.
>
>Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all
>look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade
>instructions etc...
>
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>>
>> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>>
>>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>>
>>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>>> is what the hurry is about
>>>
>>> Daan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs
>>>>or
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This
>>>>is
>>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency.
>>>>What
>>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>>
>>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master
>>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>>
>>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>>
>>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>>
>>>> -sebastien
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing +
>>>>>voting
>>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>>>> shape.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a
>>>>>>>>review,
>>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tre
>>>>>>>>e;
>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/head
>>>>>>>>s/
>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs specially
> the upgrade section of it.
> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
>
> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is good
> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs itself.
> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
>
> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
>
> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
> issues here.
That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions committed is bad.
Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release of the code.
>
> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
>
I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly. We should keep doing that.
> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
> least till Wednesday to get these right.
> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
> highly appreciated.
Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade instructions etc...
>
> -abhi
>
>
> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>> (especially David and Sebastien)?
>>
>> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>>
>> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>> is what the hurry is about
>>
>> Daan
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is
>>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What
>>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>>
>>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master
>>> and has been failing for a while.
>>>
>>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>>
>>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>>
>>> -sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
>>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>>> shape.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;
>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/
>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs specially
the upgrade section of it.
And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards.
As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is good
enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs itself.
If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that.
So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following:
1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or
issues here.
2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will
think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?)
3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at
least till Wednesday to get these right.
We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is
highly appreciated.
-abhi
On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
>think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
>hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
>no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
>(especially David and Sebastien)?
>
>I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
>to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
>on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
>there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
>of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
>
>If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
>is what the hurry is about
>
>Daan
>
>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that
>>does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented
>>(minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or
>>not.
>>
>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is
>>not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit
>>listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What
>>happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>>
>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
>>running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
>>http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master
>>and has been failing for a while.
>>
>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>>
>> so -1 (binding) at this time
>>
>> -sebastien
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>>> shape.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it
>>>>released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab
>>>>conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Animesh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>>
>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>>
>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;
>>>>>>f
>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>
>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/
>>>>>>4
>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I
think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc
hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as
no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all
(especially David and Sebastien)?
I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have
to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs
on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that
there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of
of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense?
If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this
is what the hurry is about
Daan
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or not.
>
> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
>
> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1 running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master and has been failing for a while.
>
> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
>
> so -1 (binding) at this time
>
> -sebastien
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
>> shape.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>>
>>> Animesh
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>>
>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>>
>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>>
>>>> -sebastien
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>
>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>>>>> =re
>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>>>>> .2
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 03:14:48AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1
> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This
> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against
> master and has been failing for a while.
>
Bit behind this, I've started a fresh set of tests against 4.2 - will
post the results once the job finishes. The default build now points
to 4.2. Will switch it back to master post 4.2.1 announcement.
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/job/test-matrix-extended/224/
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or not.
Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What happens if someone changes this jira filter ?
I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1 running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master and has been failing for a while.
PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test
so -1 (binding) at this time
-sebastien
On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
> shape.
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>>
>> Animesh
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>
>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>> etcŠthen testŠ.
>>>
>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>
>>> -sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>>> <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>> paths comment on it ?
>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>>>> =re
>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>>>> .2
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting
during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us.
I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor
shape.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
<an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
>
> Animesh
>
>
> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>
>>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>>etcŠthen testŠ.
>>
>>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>
>>-sebastien
>>
>>
>>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
>><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>>
>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>>> To: CloudStack Dev
>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>>paths comment on it ?
>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>>>=re
>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>>>.2
>>>
>>
>
RE: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway.
Animesh
On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>
>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path
>etcŠthen testŠ.
>
>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>
>-sebastien
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>
>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>> To: CloudStack Dev
>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>
>>
>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade
>>paths comment on it ?
>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and
>>fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f
>>=re
>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4
>>.2
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
you are right, I now casted a vote and we are at +2 (I had a tentative
+1 before pending some tests:)
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:06:41PM +0100, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> Ok, i don't want to press for a release. We'll see (i think we are at
>> +2 binding???)
>
> 1 - mine
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:06:41PM +0100, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> Ok, i don't want to press for a release. We'll see (i think we are at
> +2 binding???)
1 - mine
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Ok, i don't want to press for a release. We'll see (i think we are at
+2 binding???)
@Travis: You can find a link to the artifacts in the vote thread.
regards,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Travis Graham <tg...@tgraham.us> wrote:
> I think that's an acceptable middle ground. I would prefer to have the artifacts to test the upgrade procedures with and with a designated committer to review, commit and release the docs as progress is made we should all be able to call this approach a win.
>
> I've yet to get any kind of environment setup to roll my own release and I would prefer not to have that overhead just to test the upgrade and make improvements to the docs.
>
> Does Jenkins have current {stable} artifacts that can be used to install 4.2.1 and test with for upgrades?
>
> Travis
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Simon Weller <sw...@ena.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree completely.
>> I've spent the last couple of evenings trying to get a KVM lab upgraded from 4.1 to 4.2.1 by registering the new template first using the name in the upgrade*.java, and I've had zero success getting the SSVM to come back up. However, if I don't install the new template prior to upgrade and replace the existing template, and do some database manipulation (thanks to Kelsey's documented experiences in CLOUDSTACK-4826), I can get the SSVM to come up fine. Maybe I'm missing something here, but without reliable documented steps of what is meant to work, it's hard to test the upgrade process.
>>
>> - Si
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:40 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; Alok Kumar Singh
>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>
>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
>>>
>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>
>>> -sebastien
>>
>> +1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Travis Graham <tg...@tgraham.us>.
I think that's an acceptable middle ground. I would prefer to have the artifacts to test the upgrade procedures with and with a designated committer to review, commit and release the docs as progress is made we should all be able to call this approach a win.
I've yet to get any kind of environment setup to roll my own release and I would prefer not to have that overhead just to test the upgrade and make improvements to the docs.
Does Jenkins have current {stable} artifacts that can be used to install 4.2.1 and test with for upgrades?
Travis
On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Simon Weller <sw...@ena.com> wrote:
> I agree completely.
> I've spent the last couple of evenings trying to get a KVM lab upgraded from 4.1 to 4.2.1 by registering the new template first using the name in the upgrade*.java, and I've had zero success getting the SSVM to come back up. However, if I don't install the new template prior to upgrade and replace the existing template, and do some database manipulation (thanks to Kelsey's documented experiences in CLOUDSTACK-4826), I can get the SSVM to come up fine. Maybe I'm missing something here, but without reliable documented steps of what is meant to work, it's hard to test the upgrade process.
>
> - Si
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:40 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; Alok Kumar Singh
> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>
>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
>>
>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>
>> -sebastien
>
> +1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
RE: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Simon Weller <sw...@ena.com>.
I agree completely.
I've spent the last couple of evenings trying to get a KVM lab upgraded from 4.1 to 4.2.1 by registering the new template first using the name in the upgrade*.java, and I've had zero success getting the SSVM to come back up. However, if I don't install the new template prior to upgrade and replace the existing template, and do some database manipulation (thanks to Kelsey's documented experiences in CLOUDSTACK-4826), I can get the SSVM to come up fine. Maybe I'm missing something here, but without reliable documented steps of what is meant to work, it's hard to test the upgrade process.
- Si
________________________________________
From: Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:40 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; Alok Kumar Singh
Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>
> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
>
> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>
> -sebastien
+1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:49:26PM +0100, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I am almost +1 on this. If we can at least give the RC to people at
> ccc. Not having a new package to show off next week is a missed
> opportunity.
>
> How about trying to close the vote on wednesday night....?? If no
> bylaws forbid it. We will then be releasing ACS while release notes
> are still dripping in oil. Does the Apache foundation have a thing to
> say anything on this?
72 hour vote window, with at least 3 binding +1 votes and more binding
+1 than -1.
As long as the actual ARTIFACT doesn't change, we're good. The docs
have been broken out specifically to deal with this type of situation
actually.
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> >> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
> >>
> >> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
> >>
> >> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
> >>
> >> -sebastien
> >
> > +1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
I am almost +1 on this. If we can at least give the RC to people at
ccc. Not having a new package to show off next week is a missed
opportunity.
How about trying to close the vote on wednesday night....?? If no
bylaws forbid it. We will then be releasing ACS while release notes
are still dripping in oil. Does the Apache foundation have a thing to
say anything on this?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>
>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
>>
>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>
>> -sebastien
>
> +1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>
> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
>
> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>
> -sebastien
+1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
I am good with this as we can get some meaningful results out of the
hackathon session. Will provide any assistance required to collect good
documentation on upgrades, RN etc.
-abhi
On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>
>quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etcŠthen
>testŠ.
>
>I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>
>-sebastien
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath
><ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>>
>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
>> To: CloudStack Dev
>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>
>>
>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review,
>>probably followed by a revamp (?).
>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade paths
>>comment on it ?
>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and fix
>>the RN for 4.2.1.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> RN for 4.2.1 =
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f=re
>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4.2
>>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
Anyway we can wait next week to release.
quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then test….
I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
-sebastien
On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
>
> From: Abhinandan Prateek
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
> To: CloudStack Dev
> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>
>
> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review, probably followed by a revamp (?).
> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade paths comment on it ?
> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and fix the RN for 4.2.1.
>
> -abhi
>
> RN for 4.2.1 = https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f=release-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4.2
>
RE: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Radhika Puthiyetath <ra...@citrix.com>.
Hi,
The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1.
From: Abhinandan Prateek
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM
To: CloudStack Dev
Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath
Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review, probably followed by a revamp (?).
Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade paths comment on it ?
Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and fix the RN for 4.2.1.
-abhi
RN for 4.2.1 = https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f=release-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4.2
Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review, probably followed by a revamp (?).
Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade paths comment on it ?
Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and fix the RN for 4.2.1.
-abhi
RN for 4.2.1 = https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f=release-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4.2