increase
>>>> dramatically.
>>>>
>>>> +1 on the time line proposed - The extension proposed by Animesh would
>>>> help to close feature which are almost ready for check-in but need quality
>>>> checks. This would help for overall quality.
>&
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:13:53AM -0400, John Burwell wrote:
> Chip,
>
> As I understand the [VOTE] extension email, the code freeze is currently
> extended to Tuesday, 4 June 2012, regardless of the vote outcome. If my
> understanding is correct, then we have three more days to complete the
x.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Mike Tutkowski [ma
2013 4:50 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1
check-in but need quality
> >> checks. This would help for overall quality.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12 PM
> >> To: dev@cloud
;> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>>
response in-line to Mike
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-
>>>>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>&g
too soon, updated my response in-line to Mike
>>>
>>> > -Original Message-
>>> > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
>>> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM
>>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>
rix.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: Mike Tutkow
> > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> &
Accidently sent too soon, updated my response in-line to Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:20 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> Hi Animesh,
>
> I know you and I talked abou
help for overall quality.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
>
>
> > -Original Message
Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
> -Original Message-
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:w...@widodh.nl]
> Sent:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:42 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/30/2013 07:43 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> > > I'm actually OK with delaying the release (a
> -Original Message-
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:w...@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:42 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
>
>
> On 05/30/2013 07:43 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrot
That's why I brought up the cycle. If we make an exception, it feels
like bending the rules, which everyone can point to in the future. I'd
rather change the rules, and in the process attempt to head-off future
attempts to bend the rules, but at some point I suppose it's just
academic. Change is ch
> -Original Message-
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:51 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> David and Chip,
>
> To be clear about my proposal, I did
On 05/30/2013 07:43 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
I'm actually OK with delaying the release (as you pointed out, 4.1
impacted 4.2 in a big way). *I* like flexibility. But it behooves the
community to have a stable set of rules.
It is the cognitive dissonance that bothers me. Theoretically a time
I'm actually OK with delaying the release (as you pointed out, 4.1
impacted 4.2 in a big way). *I* like flexibility. But it behooves the
community to have a stable set of rules.
It is the cognitive dissonance that bothers me. Theoretically a time-based
release doesn't care about such impacts, but
t;>> of the features, there are quite a few that require community help to build
>>> quality. By adding more features, it would be that much difficult to harden
>>> the release.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Chip Childers [mail
;> the release.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:13 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>
>> On Thu, May 30, 201
Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:13 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:02:32AM +, Koushik Das wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: David Nalley [ma
quality.
By adding more features, it would be that much difficult to harden the release.
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:13 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
On
;>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:36 PM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, murali r
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, murali reddy
>> > wrote:
>> > > We should do a health-check of proposed features [1] which are at risk
>
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:02:32AM +, Koushik Das wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:36 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, murali reddy
> wrote:
> >
Chiradeep,
As I understood that conversation, it was about permanently changing
the length of release cycles. I am proposing that we acknowledge the
impact of the longer than anticipated 4.1.0 release, and push out
4.2.0. 4.3.0 would still be a four month release cycle, it would just
start X wee
Compromise without change?
Bring 4.3 forward by two months, leave 4.2 as it is.
DL
> -Original Message-
> From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweiz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 May 2013 8:27 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freez
+1
two weeks delay for feature freeze,
no extension for 4.3 release
-Wei
2013/5/30 John Burwell
> All,
>
> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay completing the 4.1.0 release,
> I would like propose that we re-evaluate the timelines for the 4.2.0
> release. When the schedule was origina
Yes. We agreed on time based release. I am failing to see what would extending
freeze date will achieve.
On 30-May-2013, at 12:34 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, murali reddy wrote:
>> We should do a health-check of proposed features [1] which are at risk for
>> 4.2
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, murali reddy wrote:
> We should do a health-check of proposed features [1] which are at risk for
> 4.2 feature freeze before deciding to re-evaluate timelines.
>
We are supposedly doing time-based release, so we don't care about
what features make it versus don't.
We should do a health-check of proposed features [1] which are at risk for
4.2 feature freeze before deciding to re-evaluate timelines.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2+Design+Documents
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On May 29, 2013, at 7:
This topic was already discussed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg03235.html
The consensus then was "revisit *after* 4.2". I won't rehash the pros and
cons, please do familiarize yourself with that thread.
On 5/29/13 10:10 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>+1 Four wee
+1 Four weeks extra would be ideal in this situation.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
>
> On 30 May 2013, at 06:34, Chip Childers wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 2013, at 7:59 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay comp
On 30 May 2013, at 06:34, Chip Childers wrote:
> On May 29, 2013, at 7:59 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay completing the 4.1.0 release, I
>> would like propose that we re-evaluate the timelines for the 4.2.0 release.
>> When the schedule
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:59 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> All,
>
> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay completing the 4.1.0 release, I
> would like propose that we re-evaluate the timelines for the 4.2.0 release.
> When the schedule was originally conceived, it was intended that the projec
On May 29, 2013, at 7:59 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> All,
>
> Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay completing the 4.1.0 release, I
> would like propose that we re-evaluate the timelines for the 4.2.0 release.
> When the schedule was originally conceived, it was intended that the project
39 matches
Mail list logo
