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

Thanks David From: David McBride [mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 5:25 AM To: Tahhan, Maryam Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV ; Power, Damien ; Mcmahon, Tony B Subject: Re: [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule Hi Mar

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 MS6.

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

Hi David Can you please clarify Milestone 3 (Installer integration with OpenStack) in the context of Milestone 5 (Scenario integration and Feature Freeze). Milestone 3 is just an installer update with existing plugins (c plugins)? Is this correct? In which case when do installer updates occur

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

...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 7:25 PM To: Jonas Bjurel Cc: Christopher Price ; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule Jonas, There may not be sufficient

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

2016 at 19:24 To: Jonas Bjurel Cc: Christopher Price , opnfv-project-leads , TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule Jonas, There may not be sufficient resources available prior to the opening of the window. So, this is a

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

ts.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *David McBride > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:58 PM > *To:* Christopher Price > *Cc:* opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV < > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [re

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

: Christopher Price Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV Subject: 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

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

ckne)" > , opnfv-project-leads > , TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > > *Subject: *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 b

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 list opnfv-tech-discuss@l

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

To: David McBride Cc: Dave Neary ; Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule I would suggest a simple rule is that a release candidate can only be produced from the

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

ubject: 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

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 th

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 e

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

Hi, On 09/13/2016 06:42 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote: > 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 overhead for projects which have a > single developmen

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

mailto:opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@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

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 me

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

; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 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 stable branch in our CI and release processes it has been apparent that it takes around a week or more for the

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

kners (fbrockne)" Date: Tuesday 13 September 2016 at 12:42 To: David McBride , opnfv-project-leads , TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 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 t

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 overhead for projects which have a single development stream only. Hence I’d like to propose that · the b

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

David, One thing to keep in mind, there are at least 2 major events that could affect the "Planning Complete" and "Scenarios Defined" milestones, which are the ODL summit, the week of September 25th and the OpenStack summit in Barcelona, the week of October 25th. Regards, Brady On 09/09/1

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 >