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 2013/03/28 14:23:19 UTC
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Abhinandan,
Why the push on master? We should probably focus on 4.0.2 and 4.1.0. I
know that testing is happening against master for some features, but
those are probably best handled in feature-specific threads. I'm
concerned that this might be diluting everyone's focus on the active
releases.
-chip
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 05:04:37AM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> Once again a reminder to close the following blockers and criticals in
> master, if you are assigned but cannot figure out the issue please reach
> out.
>
> >CLOUDSTACK-1687 Mice Xia
> >CLOUDSTACK-1677 Kelven Yang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1774 Rohit Yadav
> >CLOUDSTACK-1721 Prachi Damle
> >CLOUDSTACK-1613 Bharat Kumar
> >CLOUDSTACK-1610 frank zhang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1591 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1732 Sheng Yang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1739 Bharat Kumar
> >CLOUDSTACK-1392 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1404 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1753 Brian Federle
> >CLOUDSTACK-1730 Jessica Wang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1707 Mice Xia
> >CLOUDSTACK-1672 Mice Xia
> >CLOUDSTACK-1513 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1728 Jessica Wang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1619 frank zhang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1618 frank zhang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1607 Nitin Mehta
> >CLOUDSTACK-1635 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1614 frank zhang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1616 Jessica Wang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1639 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1602 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1737 Anthony Xu
> >CLOUDSTACK-1698 Mice Xia
> >CLOUDSTACK-1731 Jessica Wang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1440 frank zhang
> >CLOUDSTACK-1405 edison su
> >CLOUDSTACK-1646 Bharat Kumar
> >CLOUDSTACK-1534 Bharat Kumar
> >
>
> -abhi
> >
>
>
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:37:15PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>
>
> On 28/03/13 7:59 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:19:06PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> >> On 28-Mar-2013, at 7:20 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> >> >> I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release
> >>and
> >> >> people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1.
> >> >> There are also many people trying to test there features in master
> >>and
> >> >> unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles.
> >> >>
> >> >> Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the
> >> >> branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and it seems to me that discussions around prioritization of bugs
> >> > in master should be threaded by *feature* primarily (excepting general
> >> > blockers that *break* the build/tests).
> >> >
> >> Sure, will prioritise the master bugs only if they block some feature
> >>development or in general break the build/test.
> >
> >Sorry, I think you may be missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm
> >suggesting
> >that communication around features is probably best done with the feature
> >itself
> >being the subject of the thread. If someone is building feature X, and
> >someone else has volunteered to test feature X, then they should be
> >coordinating with each other on feature X.
> >
> >The reason that a release cycle changes this communication to "release
> >level" focus, is that there is a specific schedule that we're trying to
> >work towards as a community.
> >
> >Does that distinction make sense?
>
> Yes, I understand that we are trying to get the current releases out and
> the focus should not be diluted.
>
> For any follow up on current features or bugs the communication should be
> around features and not around the release as it is still not there in the
> release cycle.
>
> My intention is to help out people who cannot test the feature due to
> existing issues on master if any.
Good intention!
> Again I will be taking it slow on master (only focusing on issues that
> matter at this point in release cycle) so that appropriate focus is there
> on current releases.
>
> Does this sound good or I am still missing something.
>
It does. Thanks for hearing me out.
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
On 28/03/13 7:59 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:19:06PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>> On 28-Mar-2013, at 7:20 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>> >> I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release
>>and
>> >> people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1.
>> >> There are also many people trying to test there features in master
>>and
>> >> unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles.
>> >>
>> >> Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the
>> >> branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs.
>> >
>> > Yes, and it seems to me that discussions around prioritization of bugs
>> > in master should be threaded by *feature* primarily (excepting general
>> > blockers that *break* the build/tests).
>> >
>> Sure, will prioritise the master bugs only if they block some feature
>>development or in general break the build/test.
>
>Sorry, I think you may be missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm
>suggesting
>that communication around features is probably best done with the feature
>itself
>being the subject of the thread. If someone is building feature X, and
>someone else has volunteered to test feature X, then they should be
>coordinating with each other on feature X.
>
>The reason that a release cycle changes this communication to "release
>level" focus, is that there is a specific schedule that we're trying to
>work towards as a community.
>
>Does that distinction make sense?
Yes, I understand that we are trying to get the current releases out and
the focus should not be diluted.
For any follow up on current features or bugs the communication should be
around features and not around the release as it is still not there in the
release cycle.
My intention is to help out people who cannot test the feature due to
existing issues on master if any.
Again I will be taking it slow on master (only focusing on issues that
matter at this point in release cycle) so that appropriate focus is there
on current releases.
Does this sound good or I am still missing something.
>
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:19:06PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> On 28-Mar-2013, at 7:20 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> >> I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release and
> >> people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1.
> >> There are also many people trying to test there features in master and
> >> unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles.
> >>
> >> Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the
> >> branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs.
> >
> > Yes, and it seems to me that discussions around prioritization of bugs
> > in master should be threaded by *feature* primarily (excepting general
> > blockers that *break* the build/tests).
> >
> Sure, will prioritise the master bugs only if they block some feature development or in general break the build/test.
Sorry, I think you may be missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm suggesting
that communication around features is probably best done with the feature itself
being the subject of the thread. If someone is building feature X, and
someone else has volunteered to test feature X, then they should be
coordinating with each other on feature X.
The reason that a release cycle changes this communication to "release
level" focus, is that there is a specific schedule that we're trying to
work towards as a community.
Does that distinction make sense?
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
On 28-Mar-2013, at 7:20 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>> I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release and
>> people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1.
>> There are also many people trying to test there features in master and
>> unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles.
>>
>> Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the
>> branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs.
>
> Yes, and it seems to me that discussions around prioritization of bugs
> in master should be threaded by *feature* primarily (excepting general
> blockers that *break* the build/tests).
>
Sure, will prioritise the master bugs only if they block some feature development or in general break the build/test.
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release and
> people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1.
> There are also many people trying to test there features in master and
> unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles.
>
> Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the
> branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs.
Yes, and it seems to me that discussions around prioritization of bugs
in master should be threaded by *feature* primarily (excepting general
blockers that *break* the build/tests).
Re: [ACS4.2] master blockers
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release and
people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1.
There are also many people trying to test there features in master and
unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles.
Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the
branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs.
-abhi
On 28/03/13 6:53 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>Abhinandan,
>
>Why the push on master? We should probably focus on 4.0.2 and 4.1.0. I
>know that testing is happening against master for some features, but
>those are probably best handled in feature-specific threads. I'm
>concerned that this might be diluting everyone's focus on the active
>releases.
>
>-chip
>
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 05:04:37AM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>> Once again a reminder to close the following blockers and criticals in
>> master, if you are assigned but cannot figure out the issue please reach
>> out.
>>
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1687 Mice Xia
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1677 Kelven Yang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1774 Rohit Yadav
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1721 Prachi Damle
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1613 Bharat Kumar
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1610 frank zhang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1591 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1732 Sheng Yang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1739 Bharat Kumar
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1392 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1404 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1753 Brian Federle
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1730 Jessica Wang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1707 Mice Xia
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1672 Mice Xia
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1513 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1728 Jessica Wang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1619 frank zhang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1618 frank zhang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1607 Nitin Mehta
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1635 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1614 frank zhang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1616 Jessica Wang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1639 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1602 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1737 Anthony Xu
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1698 Mice Xia
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1731 Jessica Wang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1440 frank zhang
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1405 edison su
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1646 Bharat Kumar
>> >CLOUDSTACK-1534 Bharat Kumar
>> >
>>
>> -abhi
>> >
>>
>>