Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-27 Thread Kuvaja, Erno
> -Original Message- > From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:07 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on > the > idea to move it forward > > On 20/01/16 13:23

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-27 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 27/01/16 11:00 +, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: -Original Message- From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:07 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-26 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 01/27/2016 06:20 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> In which way what you're proposing above is different from what we >> currently have (ie: beta 1, 2 and 3)? > > we'd be communicating more strenuously to consumers that this was > really meant to be a release that would be a very very very smooth >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-26 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 01/21/2016 02:38 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > That said, I'd like to see a different release cadence for cycles that are > "stabilization cycles". We, as a community, are not using minor version > numbers. During a stabilization cycle, I would like to see master be > released around the 3

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-26 Thread Ian Cordasco
  -Original Message- From: Thomas Goirand Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Date: January 26, 2016 at 12:48:09 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-25 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 20/01/16 13:23 -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote: Thoughts? Feedback? Hey Folks, Thanks a lot for the feedback. Great comments and proposals in the many replies. I've gone through the whole thread and collected the most common feedback. Here's the summary: - The general idea of planning some

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-25 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 25/01/16 18:19 +0100, Ghe Rivero wrote: Quoting Flavio Percoco (2016-01-25 16:06:36) On 20/01/16 13:23 -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote: >Thoughts? Feedback? Hey Folks, Thanks a lot for the feedback. Great comments and proposals in the many replies. I've gone through the whole thread and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-25 Thread Ghe Rivero
Quoting Flavio Percoco (2016-01-25 16:06:36) > On 20/01/16 13:23 -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote: > >Thoughts? Feedback? > > Hey Folks, > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. Great comments and proposals in the many > replies. > I've gone through the whole thread and collected the most common feedback.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-22 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2016-01-22 13:54:22 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > As a lot of people said, ideally you would add features and repay > technical debt continuously. [...] If we're pulling ideals into this, ideally we wouldn't _consider_ new features until we've reasonably stabilized the ones we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-22 Thread James Bottomley
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:54 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Zane Bitter wrote: > > [...] Honestly, it > > sounds like the kind of thing you come up with when you've given > > up. > > I tend to agree with that... I think healthy projects should > naturally > come up with bursts of feature addition

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-22 Thread John Garbutt
On 22 January 2016 at 02:38, Robert Collins wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 07:38, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> >> I think this is a solid proposal but I'm not sure what (if anything) the TC >> needs to do about this. This is something most

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-22 Thread Thierry Carrez
Zane Bitter wrote: [...] Honestly, it sounds like the kind of thing you come up with when you've given up. I tend to agree with that... I think healthy projects should naturally come up with bursts of feature addition and bursts of repaying technical debt. That is why I prefer not to be too

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:23:02PM -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a > cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing > what > topics the overall community could focus on as a shared

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Chris Dent
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: - It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features In this thread we've had people recoil in shock at this ^ one... - Economic impact on companies/market because no new features were added (?) ...but I have to say it was this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 21/01/16 12:00 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: On Wed, Jan 20 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: Hi fellows, Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a thought. I'll try to go through some of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Julien Danjou
On Thu, Jan 21 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: > So, I don't think it has to be the entire cycle. It could also be a couple of > milestones (or even just 1). Thing is, I believe this has to be communicated > and > I want teams to know this is fine and they are encouraged to do so. > > Tl;DR: It's

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 21/01/16 11:55 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: Flavio Percoco wrote: [...] So, the above sounds quite vague, still but that's the idea. This email is not a formal proposal but a starting point to move this conversation forward. Is this something other teams would be interested in? Is this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Julien Danjou
On Wed, Jan 20 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: Hi fellows, > Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and > enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a > thought. I'll try to go through some of the issues and benefits a > stabilization

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 21/01/16 11:22 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:23:02PM -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote: Greetings, At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what topics the overall

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Thierry Carrez
Flavio Percoco wrote: [...] So, the above sounds quite vague, still but that's the idea. This email is not a formal proposal but a starting point to move this conversation forward. Is this something other teams would be interested in? Is this something some teams would be entirely against? Why?

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Ryan Brown
On 01/21/2016 06:23 AM, Chris Dent wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: - It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features In this thread we've had people recoil in shock at this ^ one... - Economic impact on companies/market because no new features were

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Thierry Carrez
Flavio Percoco wrote: On 21/01/16 11:55 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: As you said, projects can already decide to restrict feature development in a given cycle, so this is nothing new. We only need to communicate more aggressively that it is perfectly fine (and even encouraged) to define the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 21/01/16 16:50 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: Flavio Percoco wrote: On 21/01/16 11:55 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: As you said, projects can already decide to restrict feature development in a given cycle, so this is nothing new. We only need to communicate more aggressively that it is

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Markus Zoeller
Flavio Percoco wrote on 01/21/2016 09:13:02 AM: > From: Flavio Percoco > To: "Daniel P. Berrange" > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)" > > Date: 01/21/2016 01:47 PM

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Doug Hellmann
Excerpts from Markus Zoeller's message of 2016-01-21 18:37:00 +0100: > Flavio Percoco wrote on 01/21/2016 09:13:02 AM: > > > From: Flavio Percoco > > To: "Daniel P. Berrange" > > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Zane Bitter
On 20/01/16 12:53, Flavio Percoco wrote: Greetings, At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One of the things that was

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Joshua Harlow
Julien Danjou wrote: On Thu, Jan 21 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: So, I don't think it has to be the entire cycle. It could also be a couple of milestones (or even just 1). Thing is, I believe this has to be communicated and I want teams to know this is fine and they are encouraged to do so.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Kashyap Chamarthy
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:37:00PM +0100, Markus Zoeller wrote: > Flavio Percoco wrote on 01/21/2016 09:13:02 AM: [...] First, positive remark(s): Thanks for writing this up. FWIW, I support the notion of having milestones focusing on stability, as opposed to explicitly

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Rochelle Grober
Devananda van der Veen, on January 21, 2016 5:14 PM wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Flavio Percoco > wrote: Greetings, At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a cross-project session. In this session a group of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Devananda van der Veen
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a > cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing > what > topics the overall community could focus on as a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-21 Thread Robert Collins
On 21 January 2016 at 07:38, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > I think this is a solid proposal but I'm not sure what (if anything) the TC > needs to do about this. This is something most non-corporate open source > projects do (and even some corporate open source projects).

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Steve Martinelli
This is something I'd really like to see happen. It's an idea we've been tossing around for the Keystone project, or at least a release with minimal features, maybe 1 or 2. More comments in line Steve Martinelli Keystone PTL Flavio Percoco wrote on 2016/01/20 08:23:02 AM: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Doug Hellmann
Excerpts from Ian Cordasco's message of 2016-01-20 18:38:26 +: > -Original Message- > From: Flavio Percoco > Reply: Flavio Percoco , OpenStack Development Mailing List > (not for usage questions) > Date: 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Jay Pipes
On 01/20/2016 01:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430: Greetings, At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what topics the overall

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 20/01/16 18:38 +, Ian Cordasco wrote: -Original Message- From: Flavio Percoco Reply: Flavio Percoco , OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Date: January 20, 2016 at 11:57:56 To: 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 20/01/16 13:44 -0500, Steve Martinelli wrote: This is something I'd really like to see happen. It's an idea we've been tossing around for the Keystone project, or at least a release with minimal features, maybe 1 or 2. More comments in line Steve Martinelli Keystone PTL Flavio Percoco

[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Flavio Percoco
Greetings, At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One of the things that was raised during this session is the need of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Doug Hellmann
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430: > Greetings, > > At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a > cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing > what > topics the overall community could focus on as a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Ian Cordasco
-Original Message- From: Flavio Percoco Reply: Flavio Percoco , OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Date: January 20, 2016 at 11:57:56 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

2016-01-20 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 20/01/16 14:58 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: On 01/20/2016 01:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430: Greetings, At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a cross-project session. In this session a group of folks