You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jclouds.apache.org by Andrea Turli <an...@gmail.com> on 2017/09/05 07:30:58 UTC
Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Hi!
It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose (and
volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
providers that will be for sure useful for users.
What do you guys think?
Best,
Andrea
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com>.
Andrea, Ignasi -
Some of the new work is the scale set api stuff that was mentioned by Julio
in a separate thread.
I'll take a look at the list (and comments today) and follow up after.
-Jim
On Sep 5, 2017 2:20 AM, "Andrea Turli" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> great!
>
> Ignasi,
>
> sounds good to me. Let's focus on azure-arm issues for this new release.
>
> Jim,
>
> is your new work fixing one of the issues related to azure-arm mentioned by
> Ignasi? It would be great to have another "tester" while we iron last
> issues for that provider!
>
> Thanks,
> Andrea
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
> > to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
> > https://s.apache.org/76Fq
> >
> > On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Andrea -
> > >
> > > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds
> > as a
> > > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to
> contribute
> > > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is
> some
> > > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I
> saw
> > > re: Oauth after some refactoring.
> > >
> > > Let me know how I can help.
> > >
> > > I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
> > >
> > > -jim
> > >
> > >
> > > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (
> > andrea.turli@gmail.com)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
> > (and
> > > volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
> > >
> > > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to
> suggestions.
> > >
> > > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> > > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> > > providers that will be for sure useful for users.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Andrea
> >
>
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Andrea Turli <an...@gmail.com>.
Jim,
great!
Ignasi,
sounds good to me. Let's focus on azure-arm issues for this new release.
Jim,
is your new work fixing one of the issues related to azure-arm mentioned by
Ignasi? It would be great to have another "tester" while we iron last
issues for that provider!
Thanks,
Andrea
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
> https://s.apache.org/76Fq
>
> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Andrea -
> >
> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds
> as a
> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
> > re: Oauth after some refactoring.
> >
> > Let me know how I can help.
> >
> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
> >
> > -jim
> >
> >
> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (
> andrea.turli@gmail.com)
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
> (and
> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
> >
> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
> >
> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> > providers that will be for sure useful for users.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Best,
> > Andrea
>
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
> Ok, I wasn’t sure if we should fix some of the arm-issues before. I can
> create a branch and start working on some of them. I think a discussion
> around retry and async will be useful down the road as well.
Sounds good. I'll try to promote the provider this week so you can
take your branches out of the main repo.
There is only 1 open PR for the ARM provider, though. If we can have
it merged before the promotion, the better.
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/398
>
> What is the best way to help the promotion in the near term? Any particular
> testing to do?
Not really. Promoting a provider is just moving it from one repo to
another and changing the "groupId" to remove the "labs" suffix. That's
it.
The only inconvenient is if you have local branches starting from
labs. In that case, you'll probably have to move them to the main
repo.
Once the provider is promoted you can follow this guide to move your
branch. This is the same procedure we follow to promote providers.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JCLOUDS/How+to+Promote+a+Provider
Thanks for your support!
I.
>
> Thanks
> -jim
>
>
> On September 12, 2017 at 2:00:45 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org) wrote:
>
> Thanks for the summary, Jim.
>
> I think the open issues for ARM are not blockers for promoting the
> provider. Many of them are pretty straightforward to fix, and I will
> be able to help with them next week.
>
> I also agree that we should release a new version soon, so people can
> start using newer Guava versions. There is no problem if this means
> releasing it before the ARM issue list is complete. We can release a
> new bugfix version as soon as there is a patch set we want to release.
> It is only about having someone volunteer to take the time to release
> it, and I will, if needed :)
>
> Let's see how long it takes to fix the ARM issues, and work on the
> release (+ bugfix release, if needed).
>
>
> I.
>
> On 12 September 2017 at 05:51, Andrew Gaul <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize
>> new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we
>> could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other
>> issues for 2.1.1.
>>
>> We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query
>> which lists 2.1.0 targets:
>>
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC
>>
>> I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more
>> knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass.
>>
>> We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely
>> active:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics
>>
>> We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging
>> other contributors.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote:
>>> Andrea, Ignasi -
>>>
>>> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release:
>>>
>>>
>>> To include (if possible):
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 /
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282
>>> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a
>>> PR
>>> adding support
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230
>>> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done
>>>
>>>
>>> TBD (depending on scope):
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305
>>> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall
>>> time
>>> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301
>>> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad,
>>> see m’kay.
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330
>>> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be
>>> consistent
>>> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network;
>>> deleting the resource group will.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization:
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296
>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298
>>> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code
>>> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant
>>> support is needed, then scoped.
>>>
>>>
>>> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on:
>>> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio
>>> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a
>>> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist.
>>> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t
>>> finish
>>> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -jim spring
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspring@gmail.com)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ignasi -
>>>
>>> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit
>>> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of
>>> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan
>>> has
>>> a potential fix/etc. and comment.
>>>
>>> -jim
>>>
>>> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
>>> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
>>> https://s.apache.org/76Fq
>>>
>>> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Andrea -
>>> >
>>> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds
>>> > as
>>> a
>>> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to
>>> > contribute
>>> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is
>>> > some
>>> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
>>> > re: Oauth after some refactoring.
>>> >
>>> > Let me know how I can help.
>>> >
>>> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
>>> >
>>> > -jim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli
>>> > (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
>>> (and
>>> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>>> >
>>> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to
>>> > suggestions.
>>> >
>>> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
>>> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
>>> > providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>>> >
>>> > What do you guys think?
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Andrea
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Gaul
>> http://gaul.org/
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com>.
Ignasi -
Ok, I wasn’t sure if we should fix some of the arm-issues before. I can
create a branch and start working on some of them. I think a discussion
around retry and async will be useful down the road as well.
What is the best way to help the promotion in the near term? Any
particular testing to do?
Thanks
-jim
On September 12, 2017 at 2:00:45 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org) wrote:
Thanks for the summary, Jim.
I think the open issues for ARM are not blockers for promoting the
provider. Many of them are pretty straightforward to fix, and I will
be able to help with them next week.
I also agree that we should release a new version soon, so people can
start using newer Guava versions. There is no problem if this means
releasing it before the ARM issue list is complete. We can release a
new bugfix version as soon as there is a patch set we want to release.
It is only about having someone volunteer to take the time to release
it, and I will, if needed :)
Let's see how long it takes to fix the ARM issues, and work on the
release (+ bugfix release, if needed).
I.
On 12 September 2017 at 05:51, Andrew Gaul <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
> I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize
> new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we
> could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other
> issues for 2.1.1.
>
> We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query
> which lists 2.1.0 targets:
>
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC
>
> I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more
> knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass.
>
> We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely
> active:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics
>
> We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging
> other contributors.
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote:
>> Andrea, Ignasi -
>>
>> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release:
>>
>>
>> To include (if possible):
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 /
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282
>> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a
PR
>> adding support
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230
>> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done
>>
>>
>> TBD (depending on scope):
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305
>> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall
time
>> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301
>> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad,
>> see m’kay.
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330
>> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be
consistent
>> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network;
>> deleting the resource group will.
>>
>>
>> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization:
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298
>> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code
>> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where
relevant
>> support is needed, then scoped.
>>
>>
>> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on:
>> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio
>> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a
>> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t
exist.
>> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t
finish
>> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -jim spring
>>
>>
>>
>> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspring@gmail.com)
wrote:
>>
>> Ignasi -
>>
>> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a
bit
>> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple
of
>> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan
has
>> a potential fix/etc. and comment.
>>
>> -jim
>>
>> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org)
wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
>> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
>> https://s.apache.org/76Fq
>>
>> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Andrea -
>> >
>> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds
as
>> a
>> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to
contribute
>> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is
some
>> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I
saw
>> > re: Oauth after some refactoring.
>> >
>> > Let me know how I can help.
>> >
>> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
>> >
>> > -jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (
andrea.turli@gmail.com)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
>> (and
>> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>> >
>> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to
suggestions.
>> >
>> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now
mature
>> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
>> > providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>> >
>> > What do you guys think?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Andrea
>
> --
> Andrew Gaul
> http://gaul.org/
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the summary, Jim.
I think the open issues for ARM are not blockers for promoting the
provider. Many of them are pretty straightforward to fix, and I will
be able to help with them next week.
I also agree that we should release a new version soon, so people can
start using newer Guava versions. There is no problem if this means
releasing it before the ARM issue list is complete. We can release a
new bugfix version as soon as there is a patch set we want to release.
It is only about having someone volunteer to take the time to release
it, and I will, if needed :)
Let's see how long it takes to fix the ARM issues, and work on the
release (+ bugfix release, if needed).
I.
On 12 September 2017 at 05:51, Andrew Gaul <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
> I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize
> new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we
> could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other
> issues for 2.1.1.
>
> We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query
> which lists 2.1.0 targets:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC
>
> I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more
> knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass.
>
> We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely
> active:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics
>
> We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging
> other contributors.
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote:
>> Andrea, Ignasi -
>>
>> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release:
>>
>>
>> To include (if possible):
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 /
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282
>> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a PR
>> adding support
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230
>> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done
>>
>>
>> TBD (depending on scope):
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305
>> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall time
>> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301
>> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad,
>> see m’kay.
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330
>> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be consistent
>> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network;
>> deleting the resource group will.
>>
>>
>> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization:
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298
>> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code
>> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant
>> support is needed, then scoped.
>>
>>
>> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on:
>> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio
>> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a
>> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist.
>> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t finish
>> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -jim spring
>>
>>
>>
>> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspring@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> Ignasi -
>>
>> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit
>> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of
>> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan has
>> a potential fix/etc. and comment.
>>
>> -jim
>>
>> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org) wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
>> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
>> https://s.apache.org/76Fq
>>
>> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Andrea -
>> >
>> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as
>> a
>> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
>> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
>> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
>> > re: Oauth after some refactoring.
>> >
>> > Let me know how I can help.
>> >
>> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
>> >
>> > -jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
>> (and
>> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>> >
>> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
>> >
>> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
>> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
>> > providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>> >
>> > What do you guys think?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Andrea
>
> --
> Andrew Gaul
> http://gaul.org/
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Andrew Gaul <ga...@apache.org>.
I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize
new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we
could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other
issues for 2.1.1.
We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query
which lists 2.1.0 targets:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC
I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more
knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass.
We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely
active:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics
We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging
other contributors.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote:
> Andrea, Ignasi -
>
> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release:
>
>
> To include (if possible):
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 /
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282
> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a PR
> adding support
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230
> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done
>
>
> TBD (depending on scope):
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305
> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall time
> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301
> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad,
> see m’kay.
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330
> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be consistent
> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network;
> deleting the resource group will.
>
>
> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization:
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298
> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code
> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant
> support is needed, then scoped.
>
>
> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on:
> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio
> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a
> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist.
> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t finish
> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks
> -jim spring
>
>
>
> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspring@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Ignasi -
>
> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit
> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of
> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan has
> a potential fix/etc. and comment.
>
> -jim
>
> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org) wrote:
>
> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
> https://s.apache.org/76Fq
>
> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Andrea -
> >
> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as
> a
> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
> > re: Oauth after some refactoring.
> >
> > Let me know how I can help.
> >
> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
> >
> > -jim
> >
> >
> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
> (and
> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
> >
> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
> >
> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> > providers that will be for sure useful for users.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Best,
> > Andrea
--
Andrew Gaul
http://gaul.org/
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com>.
Andrea, Ignasi -
Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release:
To include (if possible):
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 /
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282
- see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a PR
adding support
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230
- whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done
TBD (depending on scope):
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305
- currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall time
frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301
- I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad,
see m’kay.
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330
- It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be consistent
with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network;
deleting the resource group will.
Not to include due to scope of change/generalization:
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298
- Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code
outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant
support is needed, then scoped.
To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on:
- VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio
Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a
Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist.
Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t finish
the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out.
Thoughts?
Thanks
-jim spring
On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspring@gmail.com) wrote:
Ignasi -
A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit
more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of
meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan has
a potential fix/etc. and comment.
-jim
On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org) wrote:
Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
https://s.apache.org/76Fq
On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrea -
>
> Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as
a
> non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
> the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
> new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
> re: Oauth after some refactoring.
>
> Let me know how I can help.
>
> I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
>
> -jim
>
>
> On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
(and
> volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>
> In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
>
> There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Best,
> Andrea
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com>.
Ignasi -
A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit
more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of
meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan has
a potential fix/etc. and comment.
-jim
On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (nacx@apache.org) wrote:
Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
https://s.apache.org/76Fq
On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrea -
>
> Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as
a
> non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
> the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
> new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
> re: Oauth after some refactoring.
>
> Let me know how I can help.
>
> I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
>
> -jim
>
>
> On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose
(and
> volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>
> In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
>
> There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Best,
> Andrea
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that
to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues?
https://s.apache.org/76Fq
On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrea -
>
> Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as a
> non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
> the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
> new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
> re: Oauth after some refactoring.
>
> Let me know how I can help.
>
> I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
>
> -jim
>
>
> On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose (and
> volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>
> In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
>
> There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Best,
> Andrea
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Jim Spring <jm...@gmail.com>.
Andrea -
Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as a
non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute
the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some
new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw
re: Oauth after some refactoring.
Let me know how I can help.
I’m for this “promotion” and new release.
-jim
On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.turli@gmail.com)
wrote:
Hi!
It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose (and
volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
providers that will be for sure useful for users.
What do you guys think?
Best,
Andrea
Re: Time to release jclouds 2.1.0
Posted by Andrew Gaul <ga...@apache.org>.
+1, master includes fixes for modern Guava, a popular issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1225
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:30:58AM +0200, Andrea Turli wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose (and
> volunteer) to release 2.1.0.
>
> In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions.
>
> There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature
> enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other
> providers that will be for sure useful for users.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Best,
> Andrea
--
Andrew Gaul
http://gaul.org/