Yes - it's hard to maintain, and it's yet another place to point people to. Let's deprecate it in favor of decent RN.
--David On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote: > IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes > document under control. I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for > this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate. > > Another thought to remind folks about in this thread: > > Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in > the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote. > > Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release > vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs > should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before* > announcing 4.2.1. > > Make sense? > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek > <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in >> CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it. >> Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ? >> >> -abhi >> >> On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Abihnandan, >>> >>>Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think >>>this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still >>>be prepended in more readable form afaic. >>> >>>Daan >>> >>>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Abhinandan Prateek >>><abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will >>>> list down some important fixes. >>>> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ? >>>> >>>> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the >>>> important ones. >>>> >>>> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo. >>>> >>>> >>>> -abhi >>>> >>>> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" >>>><abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e. >>>>>Not >>>>>make a release) >>>>>till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also >>>>>of >>>>>acceptable quality. >>>>>As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out. >>>>> >>>>>-abhi >>>>> >>>>>On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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= >>>>>>>>>>>>>tr >>>>>>>>>>>>>e >>>>>>>>>>>>>e; >>>>>>>>>>>>> f >>>>>>>>>>>>> =re >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/h >>>>>>>>>>>>>ea >>>>>>>>>>>>>d >>>>>>>>>>>>>s/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>> .2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
