Hi All, From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in.
People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -----Original Message----- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and releasing it). I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). What do people think? On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch only and merge forward On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are not > blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately results in a > longer RC process. > > It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well. > > On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks Mike, > > Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you. > > Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect > of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( > > Thanks, > > ~ Rajani > > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ > > On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike > (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related > tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like > to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on > the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within > 24 hours). > > Thanks! > Mike > > On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> > wrote: > >> Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike" > <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I opened a PR against the most recent RC: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141 >> >> I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they > pass (as noted in detail in the PR). >> >> If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from > it, I’m +1 on the new RC as long as this is the only commit added > to it since the current RC. > > Thanks Mike! > > If this PR is good we should probably merge it asap and go for > RC5. > > 4.10 should really be released by now. > > Wido > >> >> Thanks! >> Mike >> >> On 6/9/17, 7:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" > <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I found a critical issue that was introduced into this RC > since the most recent RC, so I am -1 on this RC. >> >> The fix for this ticket breaks the support for storing volume > snapshots on primary storage (which is a feature managed storage > can support): >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9685 >> >> Here is the SHA: 336df84f1787de962a67d0a34551f9027303040e >> >> At a high level, what it does is remove a row from the > cloud.snapshot_store_ref table when a volume is deleted that has > one or more volume snapshots. >> >> This is fine for non-managed (traditional) storage; however, > managed storage can store volume snapshots on primary storage, so > removing this row breaks that functionality. >> >> I can fix the problem that this commit introduced by looking > at the primary storage that supports the volume snapshot and > checking the following: 1) Is this managed storage? 2) If yes, is > the snapshot in question stored on that primary storage? >> >> The problem is I will be out of the office for a couple weeks > and will not be able to address this until I return. >> >> We could revert the commit, but I still will not have time to > run the managed-storage regression test suite until I return. >> >> On a side note, it looks like this commit was introduced since > the most recent RC. I would argue that it was not a blocker and > should not have been placed into the new RC. We (as a community) > tend to have a lot of code go in between RCs and that just > increases the chances of introducing critical issues and thus > delaying the release. We’ve gotten better at this over the years, > but we should focus more on only allowing the entry of new code > into a follow-on RC that is critical (or so trivial as to not at > all be likely to introduce any problems…like fixing an error > message). >> >> Thanks for your efforts on this, everyone! >> Mike >> >> On 6/9/17, 8:52 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" > <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Rajani, >> >> I will see if I can get all of my managed-storage testing > (both automated and manual) done today. If not, we’ll need to see > if someone else can complete it before we OK this RC as I won’t > be back in the office for a couple weeks. I’ll report back later > today. >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> >> On 6/9/17, 2:34 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> > wrote: >> >> Yup. thats right. I dont know how it happened but, it created >> from the previous RC commit. The script is supposed to do a > git >> pull. I didn't notice any failures. Not sure what went wrong. >> >> Thanks for finding it mike. I am creating RC4 now and > cancelling >> this. >> >> ~ Rajani >> >> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ >> >> On June 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike >> (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: >> >> Hi Rajani, >> >> I don’t see the following PR in this RC: >> >> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098 >> >> I ran all of my managed-storage regression tests. They all >> passed with the exception of the one that led to PR 2098. >> >> As I examine the RC in a bit more detail, it sits on top of >> ed2f573, but I think it should sit on top of ed376fc. >> >> As a result, I am -1 on the RC. >> >> It takes me about a day to run all of the managed-storage >> regression tests and I am out of the office for the next > couple >> weeks, so I’d really like to avoid another RC until I’m back > and >> able to test the next RC. >> >> Thanks! >> Mike >> >> On 6/7/17, 4:36 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> > wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I've created 4.10.0.0 release with the following artifacts up >> for a vote: >> >> Git Branch and Commit SH: >> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h= > a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27 >> Commit:a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27 >> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170607T1407 >> >> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the >> same >> location): >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/ >> >> SystemVm Templates: >> http://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.10/RC3/ >> >> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821): >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS >> >> Vote will be open for 72 hours. >> >> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be > sure >> to indicate >> "(binding)" with their vote? >> >> [ ] +1 approve >> [ ] +0 no opinion >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >> >> Thanks, >> ~Rajani >> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ >> >> >> >> >> -- Daan
