Ignasi - Ok, I wasn’t sure if we should fix some of the arm-issues before. I can create a branch and start working on some of them. I think a discussion around retry and async will be useful down the road as well.
What is the best way to help the promotion in the near term? Any particular testing to do? Thanks -jim On September 12, 2017 at 2:00:45 AM, Ignasi Barrera (n...@apache.org) wrote: Thanks for the summary, Jim. I think the open issues for ARM are not blockers for promoting the provider. Many of them are pretty straightforward to fix, and I will be able to help with them next week. I also agree that we should release a new version soon, so people can start using newer Guava versions. There is no problem if this means releasing it before the ARM issue list is complete. We can release a new bugfix version as soon as there is a patch set we want to release. It is only about having someone volunteer to take the time to release it, and I will, if needed :) Let's see how long it takes to fix the ARM issues, and work on the release (+ bugfix release, if needed). I. On 12 September 2017 at 05:51, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize > new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we > could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other > issues for 2.1.1. > > We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query > which lists 2.1.0 targets: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC > > I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more > knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass. > > We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely > active: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics > > We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging > other contributors. > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote: >> Andrea, Ignasi - >> >> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release: >> >> >> To include (if possible): >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 / >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282 >> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a PR >> adding support >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230 >> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done >> >> >> TBD (depending on scope): >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305 >> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall time >> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301 >> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad, >> see m’kay. >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330 >> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be consistent >> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network; >> deleting the resource group will. >> >> >> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization: >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298 >> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code >> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant >> support is needed, then scoped. >> >> >> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on: >> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio >> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a >> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist. >> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t finish >> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks >> -jim spring >> >> >> >> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspr...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> Ignasi - >> >> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit >> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of >> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan has >> a potential fix/etc. and comment. >> >> -jim >> >> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (n...@apache.org) wrote: >> >> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that >> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues? >> https://s.apache.org/76Fq >> >> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jmspr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Andrea - >> > >> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as >> a >> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute >> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some >> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw >> > re: Oauth after some refactoring. >> > >> > Let me know how I can help. >> > >> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release. >> > >> > -jim >> > >> > >> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli ( andrea.tu...@gmail.com) >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi! >> > >> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose >> (and >> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0. >> > >> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions. >> > >> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature >> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other >> > providers that will be for sure useful for users. >> > >> > What do you guys think? >> > >> > Best, >> > Andrea > > -- > Andrew Gaul > http://gaul.org/
