You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2012/10/08 14:56:38 UTC
[DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Hi all,
It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
that, feel free to shout!).
Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
we can get updates from the various community members working on the
items?
CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
on the status of this work?
CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
Release Notes and CHANGES file:
Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
possible on the website we'll be OK.
I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
shy with releasing new minor updates.
Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
possible.
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
> One other outstanding item:
>
> Export control filing. David / Joe, did you guys get that done on
> Friday? Need / want any help?
>
> -chip
I haven't yet made the svn commit or sent the email, but the work
itself is done - I wanted to give plenty of time for eyes to look at
it to catch anything that I missed.
--David
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
> that, feel free to shout!).
>
> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
> items?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
> on the status of this work?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>
> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
> possible.
>
> -chip
One other outstanding item:
Export control filing. David / Joe, did you guys get that done on
Friday? Need / want any help?
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to the
>> 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> I looked at this checkin. It is in 4.0 branch. I've updated the bug appropriately.
Great!
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes the
>> completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get ourselves
>> through our first official release process, we shouldn't be shy with releasing
>> new minor updates.
>
> This is something I do want to discuss perhaps in another thread. The problem with releases is that there's really no automated testing. Until we get that almost every release will be difficult. The QA test cycle for 4.0 release was close to three weeks. I think cutting a release for doc changes (especially since most docs will be online and can be fixed and updated even after the release is over) is probably not worth the effort.
>
> I do think cutting another release to include auto-scaling and brocade and full maven build support might be worthwhile.
That's fair! Let's take that to another thread.
>
> --Alex
>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to the
>> 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> I looked at this checkin. It is in 4.0 branch. I've updated the bug appropriately.
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes the
>> completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get ourselves
>> through our first official release process, we shouldn't be shy with releasing
>> new minor updates.
>
> This is something I do want to discuss perhaps in another thread. The problem with releases is that there's really no automated testing. Until we get that almost every release will be difficult. The QA test cycle for 4.0 release was close to three weeks. I think cutting a release for doc changes (especially since most docs will be online and can be fixed and updated even after the release is over) is probably not worth the effort.
>
> I do think cutting another release to include auto-scaling and brocade and full maven build support might be worthwhile.
>
> --Alex
So we've previously agreed that dot-dot releases (e.g. 4.0.1) could be
released out of cycle to handle really bad bugs, security issues, etc.
I am completely ok with 4.0.1 happening within a few weeks with a
limited scope.
Adding new features is supposed to dictate a dot release (e.g. 4.1)
and we've previously had consensus that we were going to attempt to
have time-based releases. (which is why Brocade, AutoScale, and others
didn't make it in) So in principle, I want the features, but we need
to get some focus on getting a regular time-based release schedule
down, unless, as a group, we decide we are going to abandon our
previous decision for time-based releases. Our previous discussions
suggested 3-4 month release cycles - that is still incredibly rapid,
but gives us time to get new features in, get lots of testing done,
etc.
RE: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to the
> 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
I looked at this checkin. It is in 4.0 branch. I've updated the bug appropriately.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes the
> completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get ourselves
> through our first official release process, we shouldn't be shy with releasing
> new minor updates.
This is something I do want to discuss perhaps in another thread. The problem with releases is that there's really no automated testing. Until we get that almost every release will be difficult. The QA test cycle for 4.0 release was close to three weeks. I think cutting a release for doc changes (especially since most docs will be online and can be fixed and updated even after the release is over) is probably not worth the effort.
I do think cutting another release to include auto-scaling and brocade and full maven build support might be worthwhile.
--Alex
RE: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
> From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it.
> There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 specific
> and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build xml files and
> cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master.
>
We should pull these to master or we might hit this later. If master is on maven build only, the ant files will be deleted anyways. Cherry-picking is pretty simple process.
--Alex
RE: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Sailaja Mada <sa...@citrix.com>.
Hi,
I have regressed and closed CLOUDSTACK-257@ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-257 .
User registration worked fine with non-oss 97 build @ http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/job/build-4.0-nonoss-rhel63/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/CloudStack-non-OSS-97.tar.bz2
Thanks and Regards,
Sailaja.M
-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.yadav@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:48 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
On 08-Oct-2012, at 7:28 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:26 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted
>>> to start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>>
>>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week.
>>> Perhaps we can get updates from the various community members
>>> working on the items?
>>>
>>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed The bug is marked
>>> as resolved right now, but that there is still some activity on the
>>> bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment on the status
>>> of this work?
>>
>> From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it.
>
> Is someone from Citrix QA currently testing this?
I've asked one of our QA engineers to verify this.
>
>> There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 specific and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build xml files and cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master.
>>
>> Any case, Chip pl. see if we need to pull them on master.
>
> I think this is up for discussion. Can you start a different thread
> on the topic (with the specific changes)? I do agree that the work on
> master to switch to maven completely is critical... but do the ant
> build files inform the maven work enough that drift between 4.0 and
> master should be avoided?
I've started a new thread.
I'm not sure about this, though the patches are practically harmless as they don't affect any codebase or maven pom files.
>
>> Regards.
>>
>>>
>>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>>
>>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I
>>> can create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with
>>> getting the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our
>>> website) during the voting process. It would have been better to
>>> have wrapped all of the docs for the release as part of the release
>>> itself (since it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as
>>> soon as possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>>
>>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't
>>> be shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>>
>>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position
>>> to cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much
>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> -chip
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com>.
On 08-Oct-2012, at 7:28 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:26 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
>>> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>>
>>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
>>> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
>>> items?
>>>
>>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
>>> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
>>> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
>>> on the status of this work?
>>
>> From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it.
>
> Is someone from Citrix QA currently testing this?
I've asked one of our QA engineers to verify this.
>
>> There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 specific and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build xml files and cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master.
>>
>> Any case, Chip pl. see if we need to pull them on master.
>
> I think this is up for discussion. Can you start a different thread
> on the topic (with the specific changes)? I do agree that the work on
> master to switch to maven completely is critical... but do the ant
> build files inform the maven work enough that drift between 4.0 and
> master should be avoided?
I've started a new thread.
I'm not sure about this, though the patches are practically harmless as they don't affect any codebase or maven pom files.
>
>> Regards.
>>
>>>
>>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>>
>>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
>>> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
>>> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
>>> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
>>> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
>>> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
>>> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>>
>>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
>>> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>>
>>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
>>> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> -chip
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:26 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
>> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>
>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
>> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
>> items?
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
>> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
>> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
>> on the status of this work?
>
> From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it.
Is someone from Citrix QA currently testing this?
> There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 specific and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build xml files and cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master.
>
> Any case, Chip pl. see if we need to pull them on master.
I think this is up for discussion. Can you start a different thread
on the topic (with the specific changes)? I do agree that the work on
master to switch to maven completely is critical... but do the ant
build files inform the maven work enough that drift between 4.0 and
master should be avoided?
> Regards.
>
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>
>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
>> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
>> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
>> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
>> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
>> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
>> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
>> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>
>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
>> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> -chip
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com>.
On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:26 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
> that, feel free to shout!).
>
> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
> items?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
> on the status of this work?
>From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it.
There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 specific and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build xml files and cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master.
Any case, Chip pl. see if we need to pull them on master.
Regards.
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>
> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
> possible.
>
> -chip
RE: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
+1 from QA
QA is done with scheduled testing and reviewing docs currently.
I will send baseline metrics for 4.0 tonight
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:32 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Hi all,
So it appears that we are here:
* CLOUDSTACK-257 is resolved
* CLOUDSTACK-267 is committed to master and 4.0
* I committed a first draft CHANGES file to master (will move to 4.0 right before cutting a release, to provide time for suggestions / comments).
* Encryption filing is prepared, but not sent (David is looking for more comments from the community)
So I'll throw it out there again - how does everyone think we looking?
Are there any outstanding issues / work / suggestions that we should deal with before our first VOTE on 4.0.0?
IMO, we are ready to start the process. I can assume silence means that we are in a good place, and go through the process of cutting a build / testing myself / starting a VOTE thread, but I'd love some feedback either direction from others in the community.
-chip
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
> that, feel free to shout!).
>
> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
> items?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed The bug is marked as
> resolved right now, but that there is still some activity on the bug
> to get it to closure. Can someone please comment on the status of
> this work?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>
> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
> possible.
>
> -chip
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Another update:
There are still outstanding issues with the AWSAPI packaging that need
to be resolved. First, CLOUDSTACK-292. Second, Wido mentioned that
we don't have DEB packaging for that module yet. If this is the case,
we should resolve it.
Also, since we are pending those fixes, I'd love if we got the release
notes into the code repo.
Due to those items, I'll be holding off a bit longer still. I'll
check back in in the US East Coast morning, and evaluate our readiness
again.
Thanks all!
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So it appears that we are here:
>
> * CLOUDSTACK-257 is resolved
> * CLOUDSTACK-267 is committed to master and 4.0
> * I committed a first draft CHANGES file to master (will move to 4.0
> right before cutting a release, to provide time for suggestions /
> comments).
> * Encryption filing is prepared, but not sent (David is looking for
> more comments from the community)
>
> So I'll throw it out there again - how does everyone think we looking?
> Are there any outstanding issues / work / suggestions that we should
> deal with before our first VOTE on 4.0.0?
>
> IMO, we are ready to start the process. I can assume silence means
> that we are in a good place, and go through the process of cutting a
> build / testing myself / starting a VOTE thread, but I'd love some
> feedback either direction from others in the community.
>
> -chip
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
>> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>
>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
>> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
>> items?
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
>> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
>> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
>> on the status of this work?
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>
>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
>> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
>> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
>> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
>> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
>> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
>> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
>> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>
>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
>> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> -chip
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Hi all,
So it appears that we are here:
* CLOUDSTACK-257 is resolved
* CLOUDSTACK-267 is committed to master and 4.0
* I committed a first draft CHANGES file to master (will move to 4.0
right before cutting a release, to provide time for suggestions /
comments).
* Encryption filing is prepared, but not sent (David is looking for
more comments from the community)
So I'll throw it out there again - how does everyone think we looking?
Are there any outstanding issues / work / suggestions that we should
deal with before our first VOTE on 4.0.0?
IMO, we are ready to start the process. I can assume silence means
that we are in a good place, and go through the process of cutting a
build / testing myself / starting a VOTE thread, but I'd love some
feedback either direction from others in the community.
-chip
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
> that, feel free to shout!).
>
> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
> items?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
> on the status of this work?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>
> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
> possible.
>
> -chip
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
>> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>
>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
>> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
>> items?
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
>> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
>> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
>> on the status of this work?
>
> Chip, I went through the whole testing procedure for 4.0.0.beta6 and everything worked fine, I also built marvin and configure devcloud with it.
> I then tried to test ec2/s3 and indeed there was an issue with the user registration for AWS. I can test it again with a new build.
>
> -Sebastien
Thanks for the followup Sebastien! I think that CLOUDSTACK-257 is
close to being resolved now.
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>
>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
>> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
>> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
>> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
>> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
>> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
>> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
>> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>
>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
>> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> -chip
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
>> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>
>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
>> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
>> items?
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
>> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
>> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
>> on the status of this work?
>
> Chip, I went through the whole testing procedure for 4.0.0.beta6 and everything worked fine, I also built marvin and configure devcloud with it.
> I then tried to test ec2/s3 and indeed there was an issue with the user registration for AWS. I can test it again with a new build.
Sebastien,
Would you be willing to provide additional test instructions here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+4.0+test+procedure
That would help ensure that our release test procedure includes an
AWSAPI test or two.
> -Sebastien
>
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>
>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
>> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
>> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
>> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
>> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
>> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
>> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
>> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>
>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
>> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> -chip
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com>.
On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:43 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
>> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
>> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
>> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
>> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
>> that, feel free to shout!).
>>
>> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
>> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
>> items?
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
>> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
>> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
>> on the status of this work?
>
> Chip, I went through the whole testing procedure for 4.0.0.beta6 and everything worked fine, I also built marvin and configure devcloud with it.
> I then tried to test ec2/s3 and indeed there was an issue with the user registration for AWS. I can test it again with a new build.
Can you try with latest build. I hope that works.
Regards.
>
> -Sebastien
>
>>
>> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
>> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
>> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
>> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
>> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>>
>> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
>> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
>> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
>> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
>> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
>> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
>> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
>> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
>> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>>
>> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
>> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
>> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
>> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>>
>> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
>> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
>> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
>> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> -chip
>
Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to
> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we
> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on
> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release
> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to
> that, feel free to shout!).
>
> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps
> we can get updates from the various community members working on the
> items?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed
> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some
> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment
> on the status of this work?
Chip, I went through the whole testing procedure for 4.0.0.beta6 and everything worked fine, I also built marvin and configure devcloud with it.
I then tried to test ec2/s3 and indeed there was an issue with the user registration for AWS. I can test it again with a new build.
-Sebastien
>
> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because...
> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in
> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to
> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0?
> If not, should it be applied to 4.0?
>
> Release Notes and CHANGES file:
> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to
> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can
> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting
> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website)
> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped
> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since
> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as
> possible on the website we'll be OK.
>
> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes
> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get
> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be
> shy with releasing new minor updates.
>
> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts
> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to
> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE
> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as
> possible.
>
> -chip