On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > > > > > > > Edison, > > > > > > > > Thanks, I will start going through it today. Based on other $dayjob > > > > responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -John > > > [Animesh>] John we are just a few days away from 4.2 feature freeze, can > > you provide your comments by Friday 5/24. I would like all feature threads > > to be resolved sooner so that we don't have last minute rush. > > > > I'm just going to comment on this, but not take it much further... this > > type of > > change is an "architectural" change. We had previously discussed (on > > several > > threads) that the appropriate time for this sort of thing to hit master was > > *early* in the release cycle. Any reason that that consensus doesn't apply > > here? > [Animesh>] Yes it is an architectural change and discussion on this started a > few weeks back already, Min and Edison wanted to get it in sooner by 4/30 > but it took longer than anticipated in preparing for merge and testing on > feature branch. > >
You're not following me I think. See this thread on the Javelin merge: http://markmail.org/message/e6peml5ddkqa6jp4 We have discussed that our preference is for architectural changes to hit master shortly after a feature branch is cut. Why are we not doing that here?
