John, +1 on that but it is true for every single feature. There's no guarantees on how reaching a feature is. At least with the javelin changes we know if management server loads, it can't do much harm.
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:43 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master > > David, > > I mentioned to Chip on IRC that the biggest challenge for me is that there is > not a unit test suite that we can run before and after the merge to verify it. > Therefore, until we expand our unit test coverage, merges of structural > changes such as javelin will carry an inherently higher risk. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jan 28, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >>> Obviously that doesn't answer the question for this release, and I > >>> think John's question is a good one. What benefits does 4.1 accrue > >>> from landing javelin at this point? Obviously after code freeze no new > >>> features get to make it in, so from a feature standpoint, if it isn't > >>> directly enabled or can be within one day, I am not sure what the > >>> point is. > >> > >> One consideration is that 4.1 is shaping up to be low on features (other > than the ones on ip clearance which generally have already been qaed on > account that they've been released). The new storage engine getting the > benefits of 2 months of QA by itself (assuming Edison's hookup code makes it > into 4.1) is actually a good thing. I'm less concerned about Spring part as > it > has low risk in what it affects. > >> > >> Edison in writing the new storage stuff also attempted to add a standard > for integration testing. It would be good to get evals from everyone on if > it is > enough. > >> > >> --Alex > >> > > > > Alex - I'm specifically concerned about getting the pending features > > into master. Does merging Javelin (1) not impact those pending > > features, and (2) is it a pre-requisite to any pending features? > > What's the harm in merging into master immediately after the 4.1 > > branch is cut? That would seem like the optimal time to have changes > > like this hit master. > > > > Thoughts?
