;
>>
>> From: David Nalley [da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:37 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Rohit Yadav; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases go
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
Late to the party here folks, and this may have been covered in one of the
other threads about releasing. Automation is great. But all we can automate is
the preparation of release candidates. But the voting will always be manual,
and will always
re.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> From: David Nalley [da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:37 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Rohit Yadav; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases
: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
> I am no release expert, but I was at couple devops events lately and the
> continuous delivery model makes sense to me. We should aim to be able to
> release "every day". Automate everything up to the actual vote. The manual
> vote
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Rohit Yadav; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
> On Fri
> I am no release expert, but I was at couple devops events lately and the
> continuous delivery model makes sense to me. We should aim to be able to
> release "every day". Automate everything up to the actual vote. The manual
> vote should actually be the lengthiest process in the release. Wit
incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Alex Huang; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08-Nov-2012, at 5:52 AM, Caleb Call wrote:
>>>
>>>> From a non-developer perspective, more release
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rohit Yadav
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:23 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Alex Huang; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
>> Sub
> -Original Message-
> From: Rohit Yadav
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:23 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Alex Huang; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
>
> On 08-Nov-2012, at
gt;
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: 14 May 2012 20:07
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> We had some chatter on private@ lis
ich was due out in May
>
> Geoff
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 14 May 2012 20:07
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
> Hi folks,
>
> We had some chatter on
lex Huang; chip.child...@sungard.com Childers
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
On 08-Nov-2012, at 5:52 AM, Caleb Call wrote:
> From a non-developer perspective, more releases shows a project is actively
> being worked-on/improved. We I'm looking at new projects
he more releases we'll
>> do, the better we'll get at it.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:25 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubato
+1 on 4 months as the timing. My opinion is that the more releases we'll do,
> the better we'll get at it.
>
> --Alex
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:25 PM
> To: cloudst
rg
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
4 months seems like plenty when I consider the things that missed the cut into
4.0. I'm not sure how much the cycle will drive/kick off new development vs
just opening a window to merge changes that may have been incubating any number
of mont
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012, at 03:40 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > In another thread, I think we were discussing monthly releases for minor
> > releases. IMHO, that's a good schedule and we should try for a monthly
> > release rather than trying to d
4 months seems like plenty when I consider the things that missed the cut
into 4.0. I'm not sure how much the cycle will drive/kick off new
development vs just opening a window to merge changes that may have been
incubating any number of months, or just not lined up perfectly with the
previous win
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:34:35AM -0800, Kevin Kluge wrote:
>> I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of
>> work and I'd prefer to spread that over fewer iterations per year.
>
> Presumably, releases will be less wo
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:34:35AM -0800, Kevin Kluge wrote:
> I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of
> work and I'd prefer to spread that over fewer iterations per year.
Presumably, releases will be less work once we do them a few times and
keep adding automation.
I'm
onday, November 05, 2012 8:05 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
> I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of work
> and I'd prefer to spread that over fewer iterations per year.
>
>
+1
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Kluge [mailto:kevin.kl...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:05 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of work and I'
+1
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Kluge [mailto:kevin.kl...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 6:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of work and I'
I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of work and I'd
prefer to spread that over fewer iterations per year.
And I would just call them all major releases (versioning aside). I'm thinking
of something like Fedora. We can independently decide to do minor releases
(pres
>> Ideally, though - docs should be updated through the process. (i.e.,
>> let's not wait until M3W1 to start doc updates, please.)
>
> Absolutely true. I just think that we need to call out the feature
> freeze as being the point in time that documentation can start being
> reviewed in earnest, a
ore and more
> features on each release and I'm sure Citrix would love to incoporate
> features for their commercial releases but if we are not strict with this,
> we will just keep slipping. Other than that, I am in favor of this.
> >>>
> >>> Will
> >>&g
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 08:26:05PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
>> Digging this out of the past, IIRC, we never got around to resolving
>> the time period for releases. We should come to a conclusion on this
>> topic! I'd like to propose t
e Citrix would love to incoporate features for their
>>> commercial releases but if we are not strict with this, we will just keep
>>> slipping. Other than that, I am in favor of this.
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>>
>>> F
incoporate features for their
>> commercial releases but if we are not strict with this, we will just keep
>> slipping. Other than that, I am in favor of this.
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>> From: Marcus Sorensen [shad
This will be really nice. It will help just to know what the windows
are so that we don't keep pushing back to include this or that... we
know there's always a next time and when that will be.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 08:26:05PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> Digging this out of the past, IIRC, we never got around to resolving
> the time period for releases. We should come to a conclusion on this
> topic! I'd like to propose that we follow a 4 month release cycle for
> non-bug fix releas
Yes, changing the major or minor number will probably be locked down
after the feature freeze in my proposal.
- chip
Sent from my iPhone.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> I just reread this, and it sounds more like we decide what the version will
> be (major or minor) AFTE
Not necessarily, I wasn't picturing a scenario where we release in lock
step with a platform so much as just jumping to the next gen of platforms
when it makes sense. Although I get the point, this could be tricky.
On Oct 31, 2012 8:58 PM, "Joe Brockmeier" wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:16:2
The release is absolutely 4.0.0-incubating. This thread is an old one,
which I dug up trying to remember if we picked a release timeframe
previously. We had not, as far as I can tell.
- chip
Sent from my iPhone.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> Oh, and I vote 4.0 for the f
> From: Marcus Sorensen [shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:02 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
> +1, this would line up nicely with having a major rev once a year with 2 or
> 3 minor revisions in betwe
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:16:28PM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> We could also do something else like align major revs with target
> platforms, e.g. 4.0 targets centos 6.x and Ubuntu 12.04, with minor revs
> being feature releases. That may help solidify the support life cycle as
> well, and we j
just keep slipping. Other than
that, I am in favor of this.
Will
From: Marcus Sorensen [shadow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:02 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
+1, this would li
Oh, and I vote 4.0 for the first apache release. Unless I totally
misunderstand something that's what we've been calling it for awhile and I
think it will confuse things for outsiders to change now.
On Oct 31, 2012 7:16 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" wrote:
> I just reread this, and it sounds more like we
I just reread this, and it sounds more like we decide what the version will
be (major or minor) AFTER we know what's going into it. I'm OK with that of
course, but we'll need some sort of definition to go by. I also think it
may end up in favor of major revs more often than not.
We could also do s
+1, this would line up nicely with having a major rev once a year with 2 or
3 minor revisions in between.
Then maybe once a month someone rolls up any applicable bugfixes and we do
a point release? Do we want to have some procedure around that, like a mini
vote?
On Oct 31, 2012 6:26 PM, "Chip Child
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> So I think we have consensus around a few things already - lets
> highlight those:
>
> * Time based releases
> * Versioning scheme:
> X.Y.Z
>
> - X : increases when there is a "major" change in architecture or some
> major new feature
> - Y :
On 05/24/2012 10:45 AM, David Nalley wrote:
So I think we have consensus around a few things already - lets
highlight those:
* Time based releases
* Versioning scheme:
X.Y.Z
- X : increases when there is a "major" change in architecture or some
major new feature
- Y : increases with every relea
I agree with George ... I think first Apache release should be 4.0.0.
Matthew
On 5/24/2012 10:52 AM, George Reese wrote:
I think the first Apache release should be 4.0.0.
Also, in terms of managing release life cycle, I like the Ubuntu approach.Not
specifically in their numbering, but in the
I think the first Apache release should be 4.0.0.
Also, in terms of managing release life cycle, I like the Ubuntu approach.Not
specifically in their numbering, but in the predictability of what has long
term support and what doesn't.
-George
On May 24, 2012, at 9:45 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>
So I think we have consensus around a few things already - lets
highlight those:
* Time based releases
* Versioning scheme:
X.Y.Z
- X : increases when there is a "major" change in architecture or some
major new feature
- Y : increases with every release every 6 month (reset when X increases)
- Z
On 05/17/2012 05:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
[lots of snippage below]
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
A release a month does not work for packagers. With CloudStack code being
open source it can be included in distributions. If there is a release every
month packagers
On 05/17/2012 05:57 PM, John Kinsella wrote:
On May 17, 2012, at 2:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
[lots of snippage below]
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
My suggestion would be to go with a 6 month time based release cycle and
also decide on a version numbering scheme.
On May 17, 2012, at 2:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> [lots of snippage below]
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
>> My suggestion would be to go with a 6 month time based release cycle and
>> also decide on a version numbering scheme.
>>
>> X.Y.Z
>>
>> - X : increases when
[lots of snippage below]
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
> A release a month does not work for packagers. With CloudStack code being
> open source it can be included in distributions. If there is a release every
> month packagers will quickly feel like they are chasing t
great! thanks.
-A
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Adrian Cole wrote:
>> To Chip's point, perhaps some wiki or otherwise that helps gather the
>> missing pieces for ASF transition could be handy. A lot of folks want to
>> get involved, a
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Adrian Cole wrote:
> To Chip's point, perhaps some wiki or otherwise that helps gather the
> missing pieces for ASF transition could be handy. A lot of folks want to
> get involved, and so perhaps a community 'help wanted' could make it easy
> for them to.
>
> Fo
(757) 275-7523
Cell: (757) 647-6236
Fax: (757) 486-2318
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:34 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
So for those that have already starte
eds CloudStack and CloudStack needs the community.
> > +1 for ASF
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: James Kahn [mailto:jk...@idea11.com.au]
> > Sent: 15 May 2012 06:57
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
Hi,
On 05/14/2012 03:06 PM, David Nalley wrote:
[snip]
The concern is that there is a fairly significant amount of work to be
done to generate an Apache CloudStack release - a good deal of which
will be trial and error and completely new processes. By way of
reference - it appears that Apache O
oved to ASF sooner
> rather than later.
> The community needs CloudStack and CloudStack needs the community.
> +1 for ASF
>
> Regards
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Kahn [mailto:jk...@idea11.com.au]
> Sent: 15 May 2012 06:57
> To: cloudstack-dev@incuba
]
Sent: 15 May 2012 06:57
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
David,
I think some lag between the last Citrix release and the first Apache release
is unavoidable.
I think it's in CloudStack's best interest if the lag is as short
Cheers,
JK.
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley
Reply-To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 1:51 PM
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>
>Hi Chip - your post reminded me that perhap
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> David,
>
> My 2 cents (and possibly drawing flames myself):
>
> During the transition period (and beyond), Citrix is going to do what it
> needs to do as a commercial entity. While this list is intended to focus
> on the ASF project itself,
eers,
> JK.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers
> Reply-To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 6:15 AM
> To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases goi
, not less.
My two cents,
Patrice
- Original Message -
From: "James Kahn"
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:09:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
David,
I'm not sure how this fits with the Apache model, but as a user o
or
> so for these to be released. Release early, release often.
>
> Cheers,
> JK.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers
> Reply-To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 6:15 AM
> To: &quo
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 6:15 AM
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
>David,
>
>My 2 cents (and possibly drawing flames myself):
>
>During the transition period (and beyond), Citrix is going to do what it
>needs to
David,
My 2 cents (and possibly drawing flames myself):
During the transition period (and beyond), Citrix is going to do what it
needs to do as a commercial entity. While this list is intended to focus
on the ASF project itself, it's going to take time for an official Apache
release to be approv
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geoff Higginbottom
wrote:
> My concern here is that the roadmap has lots of new features, and we do not
> want to be waiting 6 months for the next release which was due out in May
>
> Geoff
>
A valid point - though it's worth pointing out that the roadmap you
ar
Subject: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
Hi folks,
We had some chatter on private@ list regarding the approrpiateness of
announcing the 3.0.2 release on the ASF-hosted lists - and that turned into a
discussion of where we go from here with regards to releases with a few
opinions circling on whether
Hi folks,
We had some chatter on private@ list regarding the approrpiateness of
announcing the 3.0.2 release on the ASF-hosted lists - and that turned
into a discussion of where we go from here with regards to releases
with a few opinions circling on whether we should assume that it's the
last rel
65 matches
Mail list logo
