Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

Hi Maryam, MS3 simply requires that installers are able to successfully deploy non-SDN scenarios and pass Functest smoke tests. MS5 requires that features have finished implementation and that all scenarios are setup in Jenkins. Any additional installer updates would need to be completed by

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

Christopher Price <chrispric...@gmail.com<mailto:chrispric...@gmail.com>> Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>> Subject: Re: [op

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

lto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *David McBride > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:58 PM > *To:* Christopher Price <chrispric...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV < > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> &

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

To: Christopher Price <chrispric...@gmail.com> Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule I think that we've reduced the branch-related overhead in 'Danube

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

; > *Cc: *Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" > <fbroc...@cisco.com>, opnfv-project-leads > <opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > *Subject: *Re: [opnfv-tech-di

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

+1 for this simple solution. On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:06 AM Christopher Price wrote: > I would suggest a simple rule is that a release candidate can only be > produced from the release branch. > ___ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule I think that we've reduced th

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

I think that we've reduced the branch-related overhead in 'Danube' by closing the stable branch window just 10 days before the release, as opposed to about a month with Colorado. My concern about individual projects deciding whether to branch is that I think that it creates some confusion about

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

We are making some progress. While I do agree with this: “I think projects should have autonomy over when branches are created.”. I also think it is up to the release project to set the projects with the latest date to do it if they want to participate in any given release. I think that’s

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

id McBride <dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule Hi Frank, I’m not sure the release date is realistic. Give

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

Hi +1 / Frank branching make sense for // development and probably for feature development but for integration/testing, we saw in Brahmaputra and in Colorado that we systematically cherry pick the only argument could be that we cherry pick with delay (1-2 days), so we check first on master then

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

<dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule Hi Frank, I’m not sure the release date is realistic. Given the way we use stabl

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule David, one thing that we’ve not closed on in the discussion last Tuesday is the stable-branching milestone. Per what Morgan and I elaborated on: Branching occurs a lot of unnecessary o

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule

Is it the same one from release D page? https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/D-Release I assume I can track the update in the wiki page, can I? -- Yujun On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:46 AM David McBride wrote: > Team, > > I've posted an update to the schedule >