On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs specially > the upgrade section of it. > And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards. > > As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is good > enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs itself. > If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that. > > So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following: > > 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or > issues here. That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions committed is bad. Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release of the code. > > 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will > think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?) > I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly. We should keep doing that. > 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at > least till Wednesday to get these right. > We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is > highly appreciated. Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade instructions etc... > > -abhi > > > On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I >> think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc >> hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as >> no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all >> (especially David and Sebastien)? >> >> I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have >> to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs >> on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that >> there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of >> of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense? >> >> If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this >> is what the hurry is about >> >> Daan >> >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that >>> does not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented >>> (minimum of a fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or >>> not. >>> >>> Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is >>> not consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit >>> listing) and in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What >>> happens if someone changes this jira filter ? >>> >>> I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1 >>> running within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This >>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master >>> and has been failing for a while. >>> >>> PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test >>> >>> so -1 (binding) at this time >>> >>> -sebastien >>> >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting >>>> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us. >>>> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor >>>> shape. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >>>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it >>>>> released and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab >>>>> conference. As Chip mentions docs were broken out separately anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Animesh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release. >>>>>> >>>>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a >>>>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path >>>>>> etcŠthen testŠ. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then. >>>>>> >>>>>> -sebastien >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath >>>>>> <radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM >>>>>>> To: CloudStack Dev >>>>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review, >>>>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?). >>>>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade >>>>>>> paths comment on it ? >>>>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and >>>>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -abhi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RN for 4.2.1 = >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree; >>>>>>> f >>>>>>> =re >>>>>>> >>>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/ >>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>> .2 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
