Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.9.0 RC2

[ilya]

Hi Will and Team

Can someone point me to upgrade instructions if such exist.

Would like to avoid learning through trial and error if possible.

I will be testing upgrade and functionality of KVM & VMware Advanced
Shared Zones from ACS4.5.2 to latest.

Thanks
ilya

On 7/29/16 11:06 AM, ilya wrote:
> Hi Will
> 
> What Remi mentioned sounds reasonable..
> 
> I'll be spending sometime today and next week to test out the issue
> reported in 4.8 with VR not starting in Basic Zone - as well latest 4.9..
> 
> i know i'm late to the party - but this is the best i could do :(
> 
> Regards,
> ilya
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/29/16 9:19 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>> I think everything is up to date and correct now.  Please let me know if
>> anything seems out of place (this is the first time I have done this).
>>
>> I will wait to do an official announcement until Monday in case anything
>> comes up.  I will also wait to update the following things until Monday:
>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html and the release notes (cause I
>> have to finish them).
>>
>> Let me know if you have questions.
>>
>> Should I be cutting a 4.8.1 release as well?  Not sure how that works.
>> Remi said to do the 4.9.0 release first and then take care of the 4.8.1
>> release after.  Ideas?
>>
>> *Will STEVENS*
>> Lead Developer
>>
>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Will Stevens 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, in the process of getting the release cut.  Got side tracked by
>>> people a few times, but I am almost finished...  I will keep you posted...
>>>
>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>> Lead Developer
>>>
>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rohit Yadav 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thank you Will. Please cut the 4.9 branch so it can be picked for LTS
 release work.

 I'll publish the rpm/deb packages in the sb hosted upstream repo shortly.

 Regards.




 rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
 www.shapeblue.com
 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
 @shapeblue



 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:27 PM +0530, "Will Stevens" <
 wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote:

 Sorry, I did not follow the correct format.  :P

 After 72 hours, the vote for CloudStack 4.9.0 *passes* with 6 PMC + 2
 non-PMC votes.

 +1 (PMC / binding)
 * Rohit Yadav
 * Mike Tutkowski
 * Wido den Hollander
 * Milamber
 * Nux!
 * John Burwell

 +1 (non binding)
 * Paul Angus
 * Abhinandan Prateek

 0
 none

 -1
 none

 Thanks to everyone participating.

 *Will STEVENS*
 Lead Developer

 *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Will Stevens 
 wrote:

> The vote is closed.  The RC passed with the following votes.
>
> +1 : 8 (including 6 binding)
> +0 : 0
> -1 : 0
>
> Thanks everyone, I will get this pushed out today...
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <
> abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Did manual testing with a cluster of Xen 6.5 in advanced zone.
>> Vm life cycle
>> VM Snapshot, volume snapshots
>> Volume and Template from snapshots
>> Migration
>> Change Password
>> Change service offering
>> VPC, multiple tiers, VMs, ACLs
>>
>> Regards,
>> -abhi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/07/16, 1:43 AM, "John Burwell" 
 wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I vote +1 (binding).  We have tested 4.9.0 RC2 in the following
>> environments:
>>>
>>>   • CentOS 6.8 management server + CentOS 6.8 KVM Hosts using NFS
>> primary and secondary storage (would allow us to verify/fix the
 documented
>> libvirt/qemu versions)
>>>   • CentOS 6.8 management server + vCenter 5.5u3d + ESXi 5.5u3b
>> using NFS primary and secondary storage
>>>   • CentOS 6.8 management server + vCenter 6.0u2 + ESXi Express
>> Patch 6 using NFS primary and secondary storage
>>>   • CentOS 6.8 management server + XenServer 6.2 SP1 using NFS
>> primary and secondary storage
>>>   • CentOS 6.8 management server + XenServer 6.5 SP1 using NFS
>> primary and secondary storage
>>>
>>> For each environment, we 

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1615: CLOUDSTACK-9438: Fix for CLOUDSTACK-9252 - Make NFS ...

[nvazquez]

Github user nvazquez commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1615
  
Thanks @koushik-das!


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1619: Add the Transifex config for next version of CS (4.1...

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1619
  
LGTM


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1622: Adding missing bits field to TemplateResponse

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1622
  
LGTM


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1511: 4.9/master bountycastle changes

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1511
  
Let's have another attempt at this? /cc @karuturi @jburwell @DaanHoogland 
@wido @swill @koushik-das @abhinandanprateek  and others


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1531: systemvmtemplate: fix build and upgrade to de...

[rhtyd]

GitHub user rhtyd reopened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531

systemvmtemplate: fix build and upgrade to debian 7.11 iso

- Bumps base debian iso to version 7.11
- Upgrade ruby version to 2.3.0 (latest/stable)
- Fix Gemfile
- Update README

I've put pre-built `vhd-util` and `libvhd` used for converting xen template 
here: https://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/

cc @jburwell @agneya2001 @swill @wido @DaanHoogland and others -- please 
review

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/shapeblue/cloudstack systemvmtemplate-4dot9

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #1531


commit f29e997e3fe763c21888fc61e2d05f3a9af86a6e
Author: Rohit Yadav 
Date:   2016-05-04T10:51:24Z

systemvmtemplate: fix build and upgrade to debian 7.11 iso

- Update base debian iso to version 7.11
- Upgrade ruby version to 2.3.0 (latest/stable)
- Fix Gemfile
- Update README

Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav 

commit edc0286d14b6599f06ebf3febc960cb92252
Author: Rohit Yadav 
Date:   2016-07-27T12:43:11Z

systemvm: fix openswan version

This fixes build failure

Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav 

commit c453d10f1f65e843937c6afb62bbf828d8058d38
Author: Rohit Yadav 
Date:   2016-07-27T16:53:35Z

systemvm: remove cloud-cleanup it's not available

Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav 




---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1531: systemvmtemplate: fix build and upgrade to debian 7....

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531
  
@karuturi @jburwell this PR has enough review, can we merge this?

The changes are necessary without them the systemvm template appliance 
building fails, tested and built these templates: 
http://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/custom/biggervarlog/


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1531: systemvmtemplate: fix build and upgrade to de...

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1599: Marvin: Fix codegenerator to work with API discovery

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1599
  
Pinging for review - @wido @koushik-das @karuturi @abhinandanprateek 
@jburwell 
This enables `cloudstackAPI` api cmd/resp classes generation against a live 
running mgmt server.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1611: marvin: deploy clusters in separate threads

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1611
  
Pinging for review - @wido @karuturi @koushik-das @abhinandanprateek 
@murali-reddy @jburwell 

This is marvin specific change, Travis validation is enough to show that 
deployDatacenter works.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1611: marvin: deploy clusters in separate threads

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1611


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1612: packaging: Marvin and integration-tests packages

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
  
Pinging for review -- @karuturi @koushik-das @abhinandanprateek @jburwell 
If we can get this merged soon, all new PRs etc can be tested easily with 
CI systems as we'll get the marvin and integration-tests deb/rpms packages to 
test against built repos


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1611: marvin: deploy clusters in separate threads

[rhtyd]

GitHub user rhtyd reopened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1611

marvin: deploy clusters in separate threads

This speeds up cluster deployment by Marvin, each cluster deployment can be
executed in separate threads. This for example, allows for setting up a 
Simulator
based environment with 1000s of hosts across 10s clusters in significantly
less time.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/shapeblue/cloudstack make-marvin-faste

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1611.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #1611


commit 377e0305ed277c80aa294270486270aee7075d02
Author: Rohit Yadav 
Date:   2016-07-15T11:32:53Z

marvin: deploy clusters in separate threads

This speeds up cluster deployment by Marvin, each cluster deployment can be
executed in separate threads. This for example, allows for setting up a 
Simulator
based environment with 1000s of hosts across 10s clusters in significantly
less time.

Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav 




---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1620: oobm: simply change password transactional lo...

[rhtyd]

GitHub user rhtyd reopened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1620

oobm: simply change password transactional logic

- Simplifies change password transactional logic without using pessmistic 
locks
- Adds a re-enter password field in the UI to valid ipmi/oobm password

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/shapeblue/cloudstack 4.9-oobm-password-fix

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1620.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #1620


commit 8ac3c883cd61fa0e18498aaae4e4f519743295c4
Author: Rohit Yadav 
Date:   2016-07-11T11:36:09Z

oobm: simply change password transactional logic

- Simplifies change password transactional logic without using pessmistic 
locks
- Adds a re-enter password field in the UI to valid ipmi/oobm password

Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav 




---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1620: oobm: simply change password transactional lo...

[rhtyd]

Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1620


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

Re: 4.10.0 release

[Rajani Karuturi]

ouch.. looks like my email client stripped all the new lines.
Re-sending from webmail

Hi All,
These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from another thread
by John Burwell)
* Development (master open to features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 -
11 September 2016
* Testing: 12 - 18 September 2016
* RC Voting: 19 - 25 September 2016
* Release: 26 September 2016

master is open for 4.10.0.
It still means that only PRs will be merged and they will be merged only by
RMs ( For 4.10.0, its John Burwell and Rajani Karuturi)
Every PR should have a JIRA bug ID, 1 code review and 1 test review.
It would help in reviewing if the contributor could put information about
the feature/bug and how its tested.
Also, please rebase any pending PRs you have to the latest master or the
4.9 release branch.

Finally, anyone in the community can review and test PRs. We currently have
huge backlog. We need everyones help in getting them merged(especially
running the tests)
Looking forward for your help in merging PRs.
Happy PR bashing!!

Thanks,



~Rajani

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Erik Weber  wrote:

> A newline or two wouldn't hurt, this is pretty hard to read tbh.
>
> --
> Erik
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Rajani Karuturi  wrote:
>
> > Hi All,These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from
> > another thread by John Burwell)* Development (master open to
> > features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 - 11 September 2016*
> > Testing: 12 - 18 September 2016* RC Voting: 19 - 25 September
> > 2016* Release: 26 September 2016
> > master is open for 4.10.0. It still means that only PRs will be
> > merged and they will be merged only by RMs ( For 4.10.0, its John
> > Burwell and Rajani Karuturi)Every PR should have a JIRA bug ID, 1
> > code review and 1 test review.It would help in reviewing if the
> > contributor could put information about the feature/bug and how
> > its tested.Also, please rebase any pending PRs you have to the
> > latest master or the 4.9 release branch.
> > Finally, anyone in the community can review and test PRs. We
> > currently have huge backlog. We need everyones help in getting
> > them merged(especially running the tests)Looking forward for your
> > help in merging PRs. Happy PR bashing!!
> > Thanks,~ Rajanihttp://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>

Re: Next Releases

[Wido den Hollander]

> Op 2 augustus 2016 om 4:36 schreef John Burwell :
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> First, thank you to Will for taking on 4.9 and getting it out the door.  I 
> have updated the proposed release schedule [1] to reflect the release of 
> 4.9.0 on 1 August 2016.  Please review the release schedule.  If you have 
> questions or issues, please let me know.  I hope we can come to a consensus 
> by the end of this week (5 August 2016), and remove the [PROPOSED] from the 
> title.  Once we have consensus, I will consolidate the release section of 
> wiki to ensure that the process and schedule are clear.
> 

A truly honest answer from my side: I really don't care :)

We've had way to many debates, -1s on proposals and re-iterating over already 
discussed proposals.

We should release, fix bugs and release again.

The longer the we wait between releases, the harder it gets.

So I'm all in favor of the proposals, as long was we release more and discuss 
less :)

Wido

> Effective today (1 August 2017), master is open to accept commits for the 
> 4.10.0.0 release.  For ease of reference, the proposed dates for the 4.10.0 
> release are as follows:
> 
> * Development (master open to features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 - 11 
> September 2016
> * Testing: 12 - 18 September 2016
> * RC Voting: 19 - 25 September 2016
> * Release: 26 September 2016
> 
> In addition, development of the first 4.9 and next 4.8 maintenance releases, 
> 4.9.1.0 and 4.8.2.0, has also started with the following proposed dates:
> 
> * Development (defect fixes only): 1 - 14 August 2016
> * Testing: 15 - 21 August 2016
> * RC Voting: 16 - 28 August 2016
> * Release: 29 August 2016
> 
> Please submit defect fixes against the earliest supported branch in which the 
> defect occurs.  We will forward merge the fix to newer supported branches.
> 
> Finally, development of our first LTS release will start shortly.  We are 
> discussing a potential change to the management of LTS.  Hopefully, we will 
> resolve this question shortly, and open development on that release as well.
> 
> In terms of PR review, I plan to begin reviewing PRs from oldest to newest.  
> My thinking is that the older a PR, the greater the divergence.  Therefore, 
> addressing the oldest PRs first decreases the likelihood that we lose 
> contributions to bit rot.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> 
> [1]: 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+2016-2017+Release+Cycle+and+Calendar
> 
> john.burw...@shapeblue.com 
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>   
>  
>

Re: 4.10.0 release

[Erik Weber]

A newline or two wouldn't hurt, this is pretty hard to read tbh.

-- 
Erik

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Rajani Karuturi  wrote:

> Hi All,These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from
> another thread by John Burwell)* Development (master open to
> features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 - 11 September 2016*
> Testing: 12 - 18 September 2016* RC Voting: 19 - 25 September
> 2016* Release: 26 September 2016
> master is open for 4.10.0. It still means that only PRs will be
> merged and they will be merged only by RMs ( For 4.10.0, its John
> Burwell and Rajani Karuturi)Every PR should have a JIRA bug ID, 1
> code review and 1 test review.It would help in reviewing if the
> contributor could put information about the feature/bug and how
> its tested.Also, please rebase any pending PRs you have to the
> latest master or the 4.9 release branch.
> Finally, anyone in the community can review and test PRs. We
> currently have huge backlog. We need everyones help in getting
> them merged(especially running the tests)Looking forward for your
> help in merging PRs. Happy PR bashing!!
> Thanks,~ Rajanihttp://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

4.10.0 release

[Rajani Karuturi]

Hi All,These are the proposed dates for 4.10 release (copied from
another thread by John Burwell)* Development (master open to
features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 - 11 September 2016*
Testing: 12 - 18 September 2016* RC Voting: 19 - 25 September
2016* Release: 26 September 2016
master is open for 4.10.0. It still means that only PRs will be
merged and they will be merged only by RMs ( For 4.10.0, its John
Burwell and Rajani Karuturi)Every PR should have a JIRA bug ID, 1
code review and 1 test review.It would help in reviewing if the
contributor could put information about the feature/bug and how
its tested.Also, please rebase any pending PRs you have to the
latest master or the 4.9 release branch.
Finally, anyone in the community can review and test PRs. We
currently have huge backlog. We need everyones help in getting
them merged(especially running the tests)Looking forward for your
help in merging PRs. Happy PR bashing!!
Thanks,~ Rajanihttp://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

Re: [PROPOSAL] Early LTS Initial Release

[Rajani Karuturi]

The idea of maintaing the release branch longer can be discussed.
But, I am -1 for separate branches and separate release trains.
Maintaing the upgrade paths would be a big overhead.
We are not doing regular releases on the main release branches.
Rohit did a great job for 4.5(though it was backporting and not
forward merging at that time). Beyond that, we are not doing
regular releases. If we do regular updates on the release
branches, users who wish to take a release once in 6 months can
do so even now. It will just be current+6 release (assuming we do
regular minor releases every month)
~ Rajanihttp://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On August 3, 2016 at 4:07 AM, John Burwell
(john.burw...@shapeblue.com) wrote:Rajani,
As I mentioned in my previous email, the original motivation for
a completely separate branch was based on objections by some
community members that the longer, more conservative LTS release
cycle would place a drag on the velocity of regular
releases. Additionally, users interested in LTS releases voiced
their desire to have fewer releases a year. Therefore, where the
regular release cycle is scheduled to make major releases every 2
months and maintenance releases every month, the LTS cycle makes
major releases every 6 months and maintenance releases less
frequently (e.g. every 3 months). These longer cycles allow
users with longer acceptance test/verification cycles to more
easily keep up with upgrades. Completely separate branches and
release cycles were proposed to serve both use cases (rapid,
leading upgrades and more traditional maintenance cycles).
I am open to collapsing LTS into the regular maintenance releases
(e.g. 4.9 simply becomes supported for 20 months instead of 4
months). Ultimately, I would like that decision to be based on
user feedback since separate release branches/cycles have been
previously discussed with no objections [1]. I have CC’ed users@
to solicit thoughts from our users on which approach would be
preferred.
Thanks,-John
[1]: http://markmail.org/thread/zh43rc6ahs4te46l ( 
http://markmail.org/thread/zh43rc6ahs4te46l ) john.burw...@shapeblue.com ( 
john.burw...@shapeblue.com
) www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )53 Chandos
Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK@shapeblue
On Aug 2, 2016, at 3:57 AM, Rajani Karuturi  wrote:
We already maintain the release branches and do
regularreleases(of the past two releases) on them. What are we
achievingthrough this LTS model? How is 4.9.1 different from
4.9.0.0_1.0?
~ Rajanihttp://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/On August 2, 2016 at
2:33 AM, John Burwell(john.burw...@shapeblue.com (
john.burw...@shapeblue.com )) wrote:Wido,
As proposed, LTS will be a branch of 4.9.0 with a six (6)
weekperiod of additional testing (i.e. soak/endurance,
scalability,and more extensive plugin testing). Therefore, LTS
releases willbe named _ meaning that
the first LTSrelease would be 4.9.0.0_1.0. The original
motivation for thisapproach was that the regular release cycle
performed testing fora week which was not enough time to execute
long running tests(e.g. the entire test suite requires roughly 4
days to run, agood endurance/soak test should run for 5-7
days,etc). Additionally, there was concern that LTS would impede
thevelocity of the regular release cycle. By decoupling
theregular and LTS release branches, there would be no
opportunityfor LTS constraints to impede velocity of the regular
releasecycle.
Since my original proposal, a number of aspects about the
releasecycle have changed. I am open to adjust LTS to simply be
anextension of the support period on the 4.9.0.0release.
Personally, I think the risk of the LTS cycle impedingregular
releases is very low. I also think it would be moreconsistent
with the way we have managed long running releases inthe past. We
would still perform the additional test we plannedfor LTS, but it
would on the 4.9 release branch rather than aseparate LTS branch.
Are there any objections to this change to the way LTS
branchesare managed and releases named? For now, I will leave the
LTSreleases in the schedule as defined in the originalproposal.
If/when we gain consensus on this change, I willadjust the
schedule.
Thanks,-JohnFrom: Wido den
HollanderSent: Friday, July 15, 20164:15:36
AMTo: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ( dev@cloudstack.apache.org
) (dev@cloudstack.apache.org ( dev@cloudstack.apache.org ) );
John BurwellSubject: Re: [PROPOSAL]Early LTS Initial ReleaseOp 13
juli 2016 om 18:25 schreef John
Burwell:
All,Since LTS introduces a new release stream, I would like
topropose that we cut the first LTS quickly to verify that
variousaspects of the release cycle and version number
dependentcomponents will work properly with the new release