Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze

[Hugo Trippaers]

i’m all for being flexible, but i find a lot of the arguments used here debatable. “It causes developers to rush their development to meet the deadline." This will happen anyway, every time we’ve extended the deadline we got new features coming in at the last minute. Actually i’m under the impression that when we move the deadline people will actually try to get more features in instead of working on stabilizing existing features. “We can’t deliver features on the roadmap.” There is validity to this point, but on the other hand we already know the entire release schedule way ahead, this feature freeze date should not come as a surprise. But as i mentioned in an earlier mail, lets have this discussion. Post which features might not make it into the release so we can have a discussion if we should slip the release date to get this feature in. I think we all now that there are commercial parties working with this software to build releases and have customers demanding features, but if we don’t discuss that on list it’s hard for us to take it into account. “Feature freeze wasn’t called” True, i wasn’t even aware that this was a requirement. We should add this to the procedure here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Releases so release managers know this is expected of them. It should not impact the dates as the dates are already fixed by the release schedule (every 4 months) I’m still -1 on extending the feature freeze. I would rather extend the test/stability phase to we have some more time to fix issues before we get into the RC spinning.  This is the list of current features targeted for 4.4 according to our Jira. Which features would be impacted if we don’t move the feature freeze? ASF JIRA Project: CloudStack Type: New Feature Fix Version: 4.4.0 Resolution: Unresolved Sorted by: Updated descending 1–15 of 15 as at: 28/Feb/14 15:07 T Key Summary Assignee Reporter P Status Resolution Created Updated Due CLOUDSTACK-6181 Root resize Unassigned Nux  Open Unresolved 27/Feb/14 27/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6161 distributed routing and network ACL with OVS plug-in Murali Reddy Murali Reddy  Open Unresolved 24/Feb/14 24/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6092 Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis Saksham Srivastava Saksham Srivastava  Open Unresolved 13/Feb/14 20/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6144 HA for guest VMs running Hyper-V Unassigned Rajesh Battala  Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 20/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6143 Storage Live-Migration support for Hyper-V Unassigned Rajesh Battala  Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 20/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6142 Zone Wide Primary Store in Hyper-V Unassigned Rajesh Battala  Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 20/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6104 PVLAN support for CloudStack deployment over Nexus 1000v in VMware environment Sateesh Chodapuneedi Sateesh Chodapuneedi  Open Unresolved 14/Feb/14 15/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6109 Support of iSCSI as primary store in Hyper-V Rajesh Battala Rajesh Battala  Open Unresolved 14/Feb/14 14/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6106 Support of VPC in HyperV Rajesh Battala Rajesh Battala  Open Unresolved 14/Feb/14 14/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6090 Virtual Router Service Failure Alerting Harikrishna Patnala Harikrishna Patnala  Open Unresolved 13/Feb/14 13/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-6052 List VM enhancement to support querying with multiple VM IDs Koushik Das Koushik Das  Open Unresolved 07/Feb/14 07/Feb/14   CLOUDSTACK-5569 enhance OVS plug-in to support region level VPC and guest networks that span zones Murali Reddy Murali Reddy  Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 19/Dec/13   CLOUDSTACK-5568 introduce notion of guest network that spans multiple zones Murali Reddy Murali Reddy  Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 19/Dec/13   CLOUDSTACK-5567 enable VPC at region level Murali Reddy Murali Reddy  Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 19/Dec/13   CLOUDSTACK-5398 Cloudstack network-element plugin to orchestrate Juniper's switches Unassigned Pradeep H Krishnamurthy  Open Unresolved 06/Dec/13 06/Dec/13   Cheers, Hugo On 28 feb. 2014, at 10:17, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:26:10AM +0000, Ram Ganesh wrote: Yes. I can only agree with you on this.  When we come up with dates we have to be cognizant about slips in prior releases (we had 6 RC re-spins and counting....) which would have had impact which is the case now.  We have to be bit flexible with our dates.  But you do agree that the re-spins uncovered bugs/issues that needed to be fixed? Is it perhaps a mismatch in when the artifacts start getting tested by the users+devs as opposed to when company-x might be satisfied with their testing? More than 90% of the re-spins are bugs/issues uncovered by users who needed RC candidates and weren't testing artifacts on a daily basis (I could be wrong here). I don't think someone with a large test engineering team would wait for the RCs to get rolling. May be if we addressed that mismatch in timing we could have smaller RC phases. Something like a soft-freeze and a hard-freeze.   post soft-freeze : users+devs do a daily test (mostly manually for features they care about) post hard-freeze : everyone only looks at a daily automated test report and if all looks good, we release? --  Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com