Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Rafael Weingärtner]

That is what I am saying. Apache can (and does) handle donations, and there
have been discussions about donations that can be directed to projects at
the donation time (someone that knows about the topic could provide some
help here?).


So, the foundation part looks covered for meI think we need something
else.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Marty Godsey  wrote:

> Rafael,
>
> I agree. I am not saying move away from Apache.. I am saying setup a
> "foundation" to handle donations and even development management..
>
> Regards,
> Marty Godsey
> Principal Engineer
> nSource Solutions, LLC
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafael Weingärtner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:28 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>
> ACS is an Apache project, not a foundation per se; donation goes to Apache.
> I know that there is some discussion/work to create a way for donating
> things (not just money) to projects, but I do not know how that is going.
>
> I do not think we need to create other foundation and move away from
> Apache (because that is what this move would look like)
>
> But still, I wonder, even if we had a CloudStack foundation, would that
> make organizations that rely on it to donate/contribute more actively? Is
> that the real problem?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Marty Godsey  wrote:
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > I agree.. The only "good" way that we will get more adoption is to
> > treat it like an Enterprise product. But that would require investment.
> > Investment with money, not just time.
> >
> > As an example, I use pfSense alot in my projects. If I put in a
> > pfSense router, I take 2-5% (depends on scope) of the GDM and donate
> > to the pfSense project. I do this because pfSense makes me a lot of
> > money and I want it to get better.. The only way it will get better is
> > by supporting it. And even if I was a coder, "supporting" it with code
> only goes so far.
> >
> > And as mentioned, we create a CloudStack Foundation that is a 501C
> > corp so it's a non-profit and tax deductible for people donating.
> >
> > So the next question is who would we speak with to get this ball
> > rolling or even a discussion started?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marty Godsey
> > Principal Engineer
> > nSource Solutions, LLC
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:49 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
> >
> > If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to
> > market it as enterprise ready.
> >
> > I know we all know this.
> >
> > Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same
> > issue, what is the best way to gather experience of these projects?
> > See how they handle these growing pains.
> >
> > A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from
> > cloudstack seems a good way forward.
> >
> > Another tuppence, this is getting expensive.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler
> > > 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
> > > I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members
> > > are
> > funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on
> > Cloudstack during company time) which is often the way that Apache
> > projects get staffed.
> > >
> > > Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company
> > > to
> > fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do
> > something.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is
> > good for the project.
> > > That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap,
> > > and
> > maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
> > >
> > > There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on
> > > Cloudstack
> > and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.
> > >
> > > To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers'
> > > ability
> > to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and
> > acceptance.
> > >
> > > Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be
> > > treated
> > like a product?
> > > - sufficient functionality to compete
> > > - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
> > > - production reliability and stability
> > > - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued
> > > support
> > >
> > > This may not require more effort but requires different policies and
> > different activities.
> > >
> > > There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
> > > - This change can not be included in this release because it will
> > > delay
> > the release.
> > > - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
> > > - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release 

RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Marty Godsey]

Rafael,

I agree. I am not saying move away from Apache.. I am saying setup a 
"foundation" to handle donations and even development management.. 

Regards,
Marty Godsey
Principal Engineer
nSource Solutions, LLC

-Original Message-
From: Rafael Weingärtner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:28 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

ACS is an Apache project, not a foundation per se; donation goes to Apache.
I know that there is some discussion/work to create a way for donating things 
(not just money) to projects, but I do not know how that is going.

I do not think we need to create other foundation and move away from Apache 
(because that is what this move would look like)

But still, I wonder, even if we had a CloudStack foundation, would that make 
organizations that rely on it to donate/contribute more actively? Is that the 
real problem?



On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Marty Godsey  wrote:

> Alex,
>
> I agree.. The only "good" way that we will get more adoption is to 
> treat it like an Enterprise product. But that would require investment.
> Investment with money, not just time.
>
> As an example, I use pfSense alot in my projects. If I put in a 
> pfSense router, I take 2-5% (depends on scope) of the GDM and donate 
> to the pfSense project. I do this because pfSense makes me a lot of 
> money and I want it to get better.. The only way it will get better is 
> by supporting it. And even if I was a coder, "supporting" it with code only 
> goes so far.
>
> And as mentioned, we create a CloudStack Foundation that is a 501C 
> corp so it's a non-profit and tax deductible for people donating.
>
> So the next question is who would we speak with to get this ball 
> rolling or even a discussion started?
>
> Regards,
> Marty Godsey
> Principal Engineer
> nSource Solutions, LLC
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:49 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>
> If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to 
> market it as enterprise ready.
>
> I know we all know this.
>
> Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same 
> issue, what is the best way to gather experience of these projects? 
> See how they handle these growing pains.
>
> A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from 
> cloudstack seems a good way forward.
>
> Another tuppence, this is getting expensive.
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler 
> > 
> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
> > I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members 
> > are
> funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on 
> Cloudstack during company time) which is often the way that Apache 
> projects get staffed.
> >
> > Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company 
> > to
> fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do 
> something.
> >
> > On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is
> good for the project.
> > That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, 
> > and
> maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
> >
> > There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on 
> > Cloudstack
> and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.
> >
> > To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' 
> > ability
> to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and 
> acceptance.
> >
> > Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be 
> > treated
> like a product?
> > - sufficient functionality to compete
> > - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
> > - production reliability and stability
> > - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued 
> > support
> >
> > This may not require more effort but requires different policies and
> different activities.
> >
> > There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
> > - This change can not be included in this release because it will 
> > delay
> the release.
> > - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
> > - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is 
> > too
> late to test it and fix the docs.
> > - This fix breaks the docs
> > - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
> >
> > Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it
> sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current form?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
> >> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming 
> >> it does, fine...
> >>
> >> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has 
> >> zero funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release 

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Rafael Weingärtner]

ACS is an Apache project, not a foundation per se; donation goes to Apache.
I know that there is some discussion/work to create a way for donating
things (not just money) to projects, but I do not know how that is going.

I do not think we need to create other foundation and move away from Apache
(because that is what this move would look like)

But still, I wonder, even if we had a CloudStack foundation, would that
make organizations that rely on it to donate/contribute more actively? Is
that the real problem?



On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Marty Godsey  wrote:

> Alex,
>
> I agree.. The only "good" way that we will get more adoption is to treat
> it like an Enterprise product. But that would require investment.
> Investment with money, not just time.
>
> As an example, I use pfSense alot in my projects. If I put in a pfSense
> router, I take 2-5% (depends on scope) of the GDM and donate to the pfSense
> project. I do this because pfSense makes me a lot of money and I want it to
> get better.. The only way it will get better is by supporting it. And even
> if I was a coder, "supporting" it with code only goes so far.
>
> And as mentioned, we create a CloudStack Foundation that is a 501C corp so
> it's a non-profit and tax deductible for people donating.
>
> So the next question is who would we speak with to get this ball rolling
> or even a discussion started?
>
> Regards,
> Marty Godsey
> Principal Engineer
> nSource Solutions, LLC
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:49 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>
> If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to
> market it as enterprise ready.
>
> I know we all know this.
>
> Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same issue,
> what is the best way to gather experience of these projects? See how they
> handle these growing pains.
>
> A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from cloudstack
> seems a good way forward.
>
> Another tuppence, this is getting expensive.
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler 
> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
> > I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members are
> funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on Cloudstack
> during company time) which is often the way that Apache projects get
> staffed.
> >
> > Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company to
> fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do
> something.
> >
> > On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is
> good for the project.
> > That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, and
> maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
> >
> > There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on Cloudstack
> and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.
> >
> > To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' ability
> to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and
> acceptance.
> >
> > Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be treated
> like a product?
> > - sufficient functionality to compete
> > - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
> > - production reliability and stability
> > - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued
> > support
> >
> > This may not require more effort but requires different policies and
> different activities.
> >
> > There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
> > - This change can not be included in this release because it will delay
> the release.
> > - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
> > - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is too
> late to test it and fix the docs.
> > - This fix breaks the docs
> > - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
> >
> > Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it
> sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current form?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
> >> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it
> >> does, fine...
> >>
> >> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero
> >> funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or
> >> someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying
> >> to find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager
> >> who can focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I
> >> know it is a full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work
> >> and is hard to stay on top of.
> >>
> >> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They
> >> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every 

RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Marty Godsey]

Alex,

I agree.. The only "good" way that we will get more adoption is to treat it 
like an Enterprise product. But that would require investment. Investment with 
money, not just time.

As an example, I use pfSense alot in my projects. If I put in a pfSense router, 
I take 2-5% (depends on scope) of the GDM and donate to the pfSense project. I 
do this because pfSense makes me a lot of money and I want it to get better.. 
The only way it will get better is by supporting it. And even if I was a coder, 
"supporting" it with code only goes so far.

And as mentioned, we create a CloudStack Foundation that is a 501C corp so it's 
a non-profit and tax deductible for people donating.

So the next question is who would we speak with to get this ball rolling or 
even a discussion started?

Regards,
Marty Godsey
Principal Engineer
nSource Solutions, LLC

-Original Message-
From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:49 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to market it 
as enterprise ready. 

I know we all know this.

Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same issue, what 
is the best way to gather experience of these projects? See how they handle 
these growing pains.

A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from cloudstack 
seems a good way forward. 

Another tuppence, this is getting expensive. 



> On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler  wrote:
> 
> I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
> I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members are funded 
> by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on Cloudstack during 
> company time) which is often the way that Apache projects get staffed.
> 
> Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company to fix a 
> problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do something.
> 
> On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is good for 
> the project.
> That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, and  
> maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
> 
> There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on Cloudstack and it 
> appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.
> 
> To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' ability to 
> make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and acceptance.
> 
> Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be treated like a 
> product?
> - sufficient functionality to compete
> - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
> - production reliability and stability
> - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued 
> support
> 
> This may not require more effort but requires different policies and 
> different activities.
> 
> There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
> - This change can not be included in this release because it will delay the 
> release.
> - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
> - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is too late 
> to test it and fix the docs.
> - This fix breaks the docs
> - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
> 
> Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it sufficient 
> for the interested players to continue in its current form?
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it 
>> does, fine...
>> 
>> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero 
>> funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or 
>> someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying 
>> to find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager 
>> who can focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I 
>> know it is a full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work 
>> and is hard to stay on top of.
>> 
>> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They 
>> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their 
>> best with the little time they can take away from their day job or their 
>> family life.
>> 
>> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without 
>> a solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing 
>> and automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and such.
>> 
>> I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the 
>> problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
>> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small 
>> steps towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our 
>> expectations because we are counting on people's generosity to move them 
>> forward.
>> 
>> 

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Ron Wheeler]

For small fixes that do not affect functionality the value of a JIRA may 
be questioned.


The main advantages that I see:
- if 2 people find the same bug and both fix it without raising a JIRA, 
you may end up with 2 different patches
- if an end-user finds the bug and searches the JIRA to see if it is 
known and scheduled to be fixed, they will find the current status if 
there is a JIRA issue
- end-users may also be willing to fund a fix or commit resources to 
testing it, if the know that it is being worked on.
- often people get attached to their work and if they have invested a 
lot of time in solving the problem without a discussion in the JIRA, 
they will be really upset when the PMC or committers say "no" or "not a 
good solution"
- Googling for a problem will find the JIRA before the release notes are 
ready and the JIRA may have more description of the problem or enhancements.


In any case, there needs to be a policy that the Release Management team 
can depend on.


Perhaps "if it is big enough or sufficiently significant to be included 
in the Release Notes then it should be in the JIRA." might work.
This would allow small fixes and code cleanup to be done quickly with 
minimum overhead.


The policy also should favour the RM team in terms of where the effort 
is allocated.

There is more coding time available than RM time.
Anything that slows the release or adds to the work of the RM, must be 
avoided even if it shifts work to the coders.


Ron


On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:

I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it does,
fine...

The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero
funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or
someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying to
find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager who can
focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I know it is a
full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay
on top of.

Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They can't make
a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their best with the
little time they can take away from their day job or their family life.

Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without a
solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing and
automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and such.

I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the
problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small steps
towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our expectations
because we are counting on people's generosity to move them forward.

Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to more
contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one reason why I
struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I personally don't
understand what value it is giving us that the github PRs and Issues don't
solve.

I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people think is
best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are trying to solve for
and simplify our approach in solving it so we can get better systems in
place.



On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
wrote:


As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.

At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a project
or a production quality product.

Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the release
schedule?
Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which there
seem to be many) of releases?

How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to plan for
upgrade windows?
How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available?

How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain quality
and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision or add too
much complexity?

No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how would
they stop undocumented features or features that contradict the
documentation from being incorporated?
Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of the
release?
Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or
evaluating Cloudstack.

Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a problem know
that it has been fixed already in the next release?

Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed change
before it gets coded?

If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a definition
of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA?
- does not change functionality?
- only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is not
properly handled?
- only improves code readability or future extensibility?
- does not 

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Alex Hitchins]

If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to market it 
as enterprise ready. 

I know we all know this.

Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same issue, what 
is the best way to gather experience of these projects? See how they handle 
these growing pains.

A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from cloudstack 
seems a good way forward. 

Another tuppence, this is getting expensive. 



> On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler  wrote:
> 
> I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
> I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members are funded 
> by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on Cloudstack during 
> company time) which is often the way that Apache projects get staffed.
> 
> Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company to fix a 
> problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do something.
> 
> On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is good for 
> the project.
> That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, and  
> maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
> 
> There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on Cloudstack and it 
> appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.
> 
> To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' ability to 
> make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and acceptance.
> 
> Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be treated like a 
> product?
> - sufficient functionality to compete
> - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
> - production reliability and stability
> - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued support
> 
> This may not require more effort but requires different policies and 
> different activities.
> 
> There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
> - This change can not be included in this release because it will delay the 
> release.
> - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
> - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is too late 
> to test it and fix the docs.
> - This fix breaks the docs
> - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
> 
> Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it sufficient 
> for the interested players to continue in its current form?
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it does,
>> fine...
>> 
>> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero
>> funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or
>> someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying to
>> find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager who can
>> focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I know it is a
>> full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay
>> on top of.
>> 
>> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They can't make
>> a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their best with the
>> little time they can take away from their day job or their family life.
>> 
>> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without a
>> solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing and
>> automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and such.
>> 
>> I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the
>> problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
>> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small steps
>> towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our expectations
>> because we are counting on people's generosity to move them forward.
>> 
>> Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to more
>> contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one reason why I
>> struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I personally don't
>> understand what value it is giving us that the github PRs and Issues don't
>> solve.
>> 
>> I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people think is
>> best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are trying to solve for
>> and simplify our approach in solving it so we can get better systems in
>> place.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.
>>> 
>>> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a project
>>> or a production quality product.
>>> 
>>> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the release
>>> schedule?
>>> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which there
>>> seem to be many) of releases?
>>> 
>>> How is a system admin that is 

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Ron Wheeler]

I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members are 
funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on Cloudstack 
during company time) which is often the way that Apache projects get 
staffed.


Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company to 
fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do 
something.


On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is 
good for the project.
That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, and  
maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.


There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on Cloudstack 
and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.


To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' ability 
to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and 
acceptance.


Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be treated 
like a product?

- sufficient functionality to compete
- sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
- production reliability and stability
- business model for supporting companies to justify their continued support

This may not require more effort but requires different policies and 
different activities.


There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
- This change can not be included in this release because it will delay 
the release.

- This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
- This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is too 
late to test it and fix the docs.

- This fix breaks the docs
- The release can not be made until this doc is updated.

Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it 
sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current form?


Ron



On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:

I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it does,
fine...

The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero
funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or
someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying to
find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager who can
focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I know it is a
full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay
on top of.

Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They can't make
a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their best with the
little time they can take away from their day job or their family life.

Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without a
solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing and
automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and such.

I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the
problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small steps
towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our expectations
because we are counting on people's generosity to move them forward.

Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to more
contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one reason why I
struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I personally don't
understand what value it is giving us that the github PRs and Issues don't
solve.

I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people think is
best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are trying to solve for
and simplify our approach in solving it so we can get better systems in
place.



On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
wrote:


As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.

At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a project
or a production quality product.

Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the release
schedule?
Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which there
seem to be many) of releases?

How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to plan for
upgrade windows?
How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available?

How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain quality
and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision or add too
much complexity?

No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how would
they stop undocumented features or features that contradict the
documentation from being incorporated?
Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of the
release?
Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or
evaluating Cloudstack.

Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a problem know
that it has been fixed already in the next release?

Without a JIRA entry, 

RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Marty Godsey]

Hello guys..

I do work for a company in Silicon Valley. The company also uses a free project 
to build its commercial project to make money. This project, like ACS, has no 
funding. The project is FreeNAS. However, IXSystems, the company, uses FreeNAS 
to build a "supported, commercial version" called TrueNAS with which they sale 
to make money. :)

In turn, IXSystems actual provides a full time PM and developers to the 
project. It’s a small cost to pay for a product that makes them a lot of money.

So I guess where I am getting is at the CCC I had the pleasure to meet some 
very good people and many large companies that make a lot of money from using 
ACS. I know right now, comparable speaking, I am small potatoes. But some of 
these people I meet seemed to be pretty sizable. Have or has any  of these 
companies thought of hiring an FTE that is committed to making the product that 
they use better and chalking it up as contribution? Or even jointly hiring an 
FTE with another company.

Now I am not sure what bureaucratic BS will come with Cloudstack being in the 
Apache Foundation. I don’t know if what I am saying is possible or if we could 
even create a Cloudsatck Foundation that handles the development side of 
Cloudstack.. I don’t know. I also am not saying that the people on this mailing 
list are not already contributing time AND money to the project.. I don’t 
know.. I am just making my opinion from the outside looking in.  I am just 
making a comparison to another very successful OSS project that does employee 
full time people to help the project grow and does so without any "public" 
fundraisers.

So am I on the right track? Has this already been discussed and dismissed? If 
so what were the reasons? I am more than willing to donate to the ACS project. 
I am not In a position to hire a FTE for it since I am the small minnow here in 
a large pod but I will help all I can.

Regards,
Marty Godsey
Principal Engineer
nSource Solutions, LLC

-Original Message-
From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:42 AM
To: Ron Wheeler ; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it does, 
fine...

The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero funding. 
So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or someone whose job 
it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying to find a way to, at the 
very least, fund a full time release manager who can focus 100% on the project. 
As the release manager for 4.9, I know it is a full time job. I did my best, 
but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay on top of.

Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They can't make a 
living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their best with the little 
time they can take away from their day job or their family life.

Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without a solid CI 
infrastructure backing the project and improved testing and automation, we will 
always struggles with release schedules and such.

I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the problems 
you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small steps 
towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our expectations 
because we are counting on people's generosity to move them forward.

Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to more 
contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one reason why I 
struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I personally don't 
understand what value it is giving us that the github PRs and Issues don't 
solve.

I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people think is best, 
but I think it is worth understanding what we are trying to solve for and 
simplify our approach in solving it so we can get better systems in place.



On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
wrote:

> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.
>
> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a 
> project or a production quality product.
>
> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the release 
> schedule?
> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which there 
> seem to be many) of releases?
>
> How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to plan 
> for upgrade windows?
> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available?
>
> How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain 
> quality and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision 
> or add too much complexity?
>
> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how would 
> they stop undocumented features or features that contradict 

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Will Stevens]

I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it does,
fine...

The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero
funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or
someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying to
find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager who can
focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I know it is a
full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay
on top of.

Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They can't make
a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their best with the
little time they can take away from their day job or their family life.

Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without a
solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing and
automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and such.

I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the
problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small steps
towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our expectations
because we are counting on people's generosity to move them forward.

Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to more
contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one reason why I
struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I personally don't
understand what value it is giving us that the github PRs and Issues don't
solve.

I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people think is
best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are trying to solve for
and simplify our approach in solving it so we can get better systems in
place.



On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
wrote:

> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.
>
> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a project
> or a production quality product.
>
> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the release
> schedule?
> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which there
> seem to be many) of releases?
>
> How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to plan for
> upgrade windows?
> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available?
>
> How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain quality
> and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision or add too
> much complexity?
>
> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how would
> they stop undocumented features or features that contradict the
> documentation from being incorporated?
> Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of the
> release?
> Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or
> evaluating Cloudstack.
>
> Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a problem know
> that it has been fixed already in the next release?
>
> Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed change
> before it gets coded?
>
> If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a definition
> of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA?
> - does not change functionality?
> - only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is not
> properly handled?
> - only improves code readability or future extensibility?
> - does not affect documentation?
>
> Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support do have strong
> management.
>
> There are other examples where great Apache software is failing to get
> recognized because the PMC is not paying attention to the product
> management side of things.
> I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product with a strong technical
> team supporting it.
> It has very little following because the documentation and marketing
> collateral is very poor.
> It gets by because the audience for it is largely software developers who
> can read code and can test features to work out the functionality.
> It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention to the product
> management side of the project.
>
> Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately this takes
> effort and some discipline.
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>
>> Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that communication? Can
>> we not use issues in github now instead of jira if someone needs to open
>> an
>> issue but does not yet have code to contribute. If not, jira could still
>> be
>> used for that.
>>
>> I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of pointless. I
>> feel like the github PRs and the cide going in should be the source of
>> truth, not a random third party tool.
>>
>> For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release notes
>> from the PRs merged 

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Ron Wheeler]

As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.

At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a 
project or a production quality product.


Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the release 
schedule?
Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which there 
seem to be many) of releases?


How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to plan 
for upgrade windows?

How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available?

How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain quality 
and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision or add too 
much complexity?


No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how would 
they stop undocumented features or features that contradict the 
documentation from being incorporated?
Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of the 
release?
Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or 
evaluating Cloudstack.


Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a problem know 
that it has been fixed already in the next release?


Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed 
change before it gets coded?


If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a 
definition of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA?

- does not change functionality?
- only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is not 
properly handled?

- only improves code readability or future extensibility?
- does not affect documentation?

Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support do have strong 
management.


There are other examples where great Apache software is failing to get 
recognized because the PMC is not paying attention to the product 
management side of things.
I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product with a strong 
technical team supporting it.
It has very little following because the documentation and marketing 
collateral is very poor.
It gets by because the audience for it is largely software developers 
who can read code and can test features to work out the functionality.
It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention to the product 
management side of the project.


Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately this takes 
effort and some discipline.



Ron





On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote:

Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that communication? Can
we not use issues in github now instead of jira if someone needs to open an
issue but does not yet have code to contribute. If not, jira could still be
used for that.

I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of pointless. I
feel like the github PRs and the cide going in should be the source of
truth, not a random third party tool.

For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release notes
from the PRs merged in that release. I think that is easier and more
accurate than depending on jira since it does not track the actual code
tree.

Thats my 0.02$.

On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus"  wrote:

Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding what
CloudStack does and how it does it.
Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else.



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue




-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
To: dev 
Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus 
wrote:

+ Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira

history.

And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.


No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway, hence on
git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it is not required
for good coding practices and as we are not and will not function as a
corporation, jira is an extra for those that grave for it. not a
requirement.

--
Daan



--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Will Stevens]

Agreed Alex

On Jun 29, 2017 5:34 AM, "Alex Hitchins"  wrote:

> I've saved up enough to chip a tuppence worth of comment in.
>
> In any other project, you would have a project manager, someone at the
> coalface ensuring there is a perfect harmony behind the chaos that is
> software development.
>
> From the sidelines, it looks like Cloudstack really needs some project
> management love and attention.
>
> Comment over, as you were.
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jun 2017, at 10:24, Paul Angus  wrote:
> >
> > Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
> > It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding what
> CloudStack does and how it does it.
> > Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
> > Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Paul Angus
> >
> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
> > To: dev 
> > Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus 
> wrote:
> >> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira
> history.
> >> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.
> >
> >
> > No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway, hence
> on git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it is not required
> for good coding practices and as we are not and will not function as a
> corporation, jira is an extra for those that grave for it. not a
> requirement.
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>

RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Will Stevens]

Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that communication? Can
we not use issues in github now instead of jira if someone needs to open an
issue but does not yet have code to contribute. If not, jira could still be
used for that.

I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of pointless. I
feel like the github PRs and the cide going in should be the source of
truth, not a random third party tool.

For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release notes
from the PRs merged in that release. I think that is easier and more
accurate than depending on jira since it does not track the actual code
tree.

Thats my 0.02$.

On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus"  wrote:

Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding what
CloudStack does and how it does it.
Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else.



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue




-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
To: dev 
Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus 
wrote:
> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira
history.
> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.


No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway, hence on
git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it is not required
for good coding practices and as we are not and will not function as a
corporation, jira is an extra for those that grave for it. not a
requirement.

--
Daan

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Rene Moser]

Hi Paul

On 06/29/2017 11:06 AM, Paul Angus wrote:
> Hi,   Mr Grumpy here!
> 
> I was looking the commits and I'm seeing commits going in with no Jira Issue 
> assigned.
> My understanding is that there must be a Jira ticket for EVERY 
> fix/enhancement/feature, so that we have a way to search and track these 
> things.  
> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira history.
> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.
> 
> I know rules and procedures are a PITA, but we can't let this turn into the 
> wild west!

I would say it depends (swiss neutral mindset) :).

Sometimes you'd like to have a full description (high level view) of
what changes are related to which commits.

Sometimes it would be overkill to open a jira ticket for every smaller
enhancement.

E.g.
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/d53dd0a671e635edcefcae332e1b7d428ac7600b
e.g. imho there is no value in a jira ticket for this change.

However, I agree that for everything "changelog" relevant, I would like
to have a jira ticket for.

René

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Alex Hitchins]

I've saved up enough to chip a tuppence worth of comment in.

In any other project, you would have a project manager, someone at the coalface 
ensuring there is a perfect harmony behind the chaos that is software 
development.

From the sidelines, it looks like Cloudstack really needs some project 
management love and attention. 

Comment over, as you were.



> On 29 Jun 2017, at 10:24, Paul Angus  wrote:
> 
> Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
> It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding what 
> CloudStack does and how it does it.
> Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
> Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Paul Angus
> 
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
> To: dev 
> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus  
>> wrote:
>> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira history.
>> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.
> 
> 
> No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway, hence on 
> git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it is not required for 
> good coding practices and as we are not and will not function as a 
> corporation, jira is an extra for those that grave for it. not a requirement.
> 
> --
> Daan

RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Paul Angus]

Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding what 
CloudStack does and how it does it.
Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else.



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
To: dev 
Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus  wrote:
> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira history.
> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.


No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway, hence on 
git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it is not required for 
good coding practices and as we are not and will not function as a corporation, 
jira is an extra for those that grave for it. not a requirement.

--
Daan

Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Daan Hoogland]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus  wrote:
> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira history.
> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.


No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway,
hence on git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it is
not required for good coding practices and as we are not and will not
function as a corporation, jira is an extra for those that grave for
it. not a requirement.

-- 
Daan

JIRA - PLEASE READ

[Paul Angus]

Hi,   Mr Grumpy here!

I was looking the commits and I'm seeing commits going in with no Jira Issue 
assigned.
My understanding is that there must be a Jira ticket for EVERY 
fix/enhancement/feature, so that we have a way to search and track these 
things.  
+ Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira history.
And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.

I know rules and procedures are a PITA, but we can't let this turn into the 
wild west!



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] 
Sent: 28 June 2017 10:10
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3

Yes, those shouldn't have been merged.  We should have released faster and then 
merged.

Lets think of it as ours and us than theirs and those.

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Paul Angus
(paul.an...@shapeblue.com) wrote:

Those new PRs should not have been merged.

Those on the mailing list should respect the process and accept that they will 
have to wait until code is unfrozen.

Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue

-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
Sent: 28 June 2017 07:45
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3

Paul,

Which shows we are not actively following RCs. That PR was a blocker for RC3 
and was well discussed. That PR is a perfect example that we are not working as 
community to release code.
That is a fix for a blocker which stayed open for more than 45 days.

If you see till RC2 it was only blockers that were merged. But, since it has 
taken a lot more time to fix blockers, more PRs were merged on request on the 
mailing list(and we don't have people even to object it). you can think of it 
as a combination of two releases due to the time it has taken.

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Paul Angus
(paul.an...@shapeblue.com) wrote:

Rajani,

I suspect that fatigue with the 4.10 release testing that we are seeing is due 
to the time it has taken to release it. And that is has been caused by new code 
going in, which have introduced new bugs.

This was demonstrated in the last -1 from Kris. This change was merged 10 days 
ago.

Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue

-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
Sent: 28 June 2017 06:14
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3

We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively 
participating in the release process.

We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in.
We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How 
many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, 
with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month 
with no one to test.

I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively.

We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as 
outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list.

Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current 
situation.

We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code.
principles and theory wont help.

Thanks,

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner
(rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote:

+1 to what Paul said.
IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges 
should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific 
problems in the RC.
I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, 
we have not followed it?

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus 
wrote:

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 

Re: Issue 9367

[Rajani Karuturi]

fix for it(PR #1829) is merged and will be available with
4.10.0.0 and the next release of 4.9.*

Thanks,

~ Rajani

http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/

On June 29, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Lotic Lists (li...@lotic.com.br)
wrote:

Hi all

News about issue 9367?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9367

I need a volume with 6TB. If I create an extended volume with 3x
2TB that
issue affect the environment.

Env: XenServer 6.5, ACS 4.9.2, Guest Win2k12 R2 HVM

Thanks

Marcelo