Sudha, The current plan is to merge once. We explored the feasibility of decomposing it into independent, testable chunks, and determined it was not possible.
Thanks, -John On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > Thanks John for summary. From QA stand point it would make sense to merge once > > - assigned test cases are executed and pass rate is on par with release > criteria ( test plans published and execution results are being posted) > - automation runs are successful and shows same pass rate as Master > - blockers are fixed before merge > > Let me know if this would be agreeable. QA usually would not test features > completely on feature branches but this one is exception given the nature of > changes. > > Thanks > /sudha > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:38 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Object_Store storage refactor Meeting Notes > > All, > > Edison Su, Min Chen, Animesh Chaturvedi, and myself met via teleconference on > 11 June 2013 @ 1:30 PM EDT. The goal of the meeting was determine the path > forward for merging the object_store branch by the 4.2 freeze date, 30 June > 2013. The conversation focused on the following topics: > > * Staging area mechanism > * Removing dependencies from the Storage to the Hypervisor layer > * Dependencies of other patches on object_store > * QA's desire to start testing the patch ASAP > > Min, Edison, and I agreed that the staging mechanism must age out files and > use a reference count to ensure that file in-use are not prematurely purged. > While we agree that some form of reservation system is required, Edison is > concerned that it will be too conservative and create bottlenecks. > > As we delved deeper into the subject of the storage to hypervisor > dependencies and the reservation mechanism, we determined that NFS storage > would still need to be the size of the secondary storage data set. Since the > hypervisor layer has not been completely fitted to the new storage layer, NFS > would be still required for a number of operations. Based on this > realization, we decided to de-scope the staging mechanism, and leave the 4.2 > object store functionality the same as 4.1. Therefore, NFS will remain the > secondary storage of record, and object storage will serve as > backup/multi-zone sync. In 4.3, we will fit the hypervisor layer for the new > storage layer which will allow object stores to server as secondary storage. > This work will include removing the storage to hypervisor dependencies. For > 4.2, Edison and Min have implemented the critical foundation necessary to > establish our next generation storage layer. There simply was not enough > time in this development cycle to make these changes and fit the hypervisor > layer. > > Due to the size of the patch, Animesh voiced QA's concerned regarding test > scope and impact. As such, we want to get the merge completed as soon as > possible to allow testing to begin. We discussed breaking up the patch, but > we could not devise a reasonable set of chunks there were both isolated and > significantly testable. Therefore, the patch can only be delivered in its > current state. We also walked through potential dependencies between the > storage framework changes and the solidfire branch. It was determined that > these two merges could occur independently. > > Finally, Animesh is going to setup a meeting at Citrix's Santa Clara office > on 26 June 2013 (the day after Collab ends) to discuss the path forward for > 4.3 and work through a high-level design/approach to fitting the hypervisor > layer to exploit the new storage capabilities. Details will be published to > the dev mailing list. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 2:08 AM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> It is 11th June. John is not free between 9:15am to 10am, that is why >> we schedule it at 10:30am. >> >> Thanks >> -min >> >> On 6/10/13 10:52 PM, "Nitin Mehta" <nitin.me...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Min, >>> When you say tomorrow, what date is it 11th June or 12th ? Can the >>> time be preponed by an hour please - its too late here ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Nitin >>> >>> On 11/06/13 11:06 AM, "Min Chen" <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> To reach consensus on some remaining NFS cache issues on >>>> object_store storage refactor work in a more effective manner, John, >>>> Edison and I have scheduled a GoToMeeting tomorrow to discuss them >>>> over the phone, any interested parties are welcome to join and >>>> brainstorm. Here are detailed GTM information: >>>> >>>> Meeting Time: 10:30 AM 12:30 PM PST >>>> >>>> Meeting Details: >>>> >>>> 1. Please join my meeting. >>>> https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/188620897 >>>> >>>> 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. >>>> Or, call in using your telephone. >>>> >>>> United States: +1 (626) 521-0017 >>>> United States (toll-free): 1 877 309 2070 >>>> >>>> Access Code: 188-620-897 >>>> Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting >>>> >>>> Meeting ID: 188-620-897 >>>> >>>> GoToMeeting(r) >>>> Online Meetings Made Easy(r) >>>> >>>> Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your >>>> iPhone(r), iPad(r) or Android(r) device via the GoToMeeting app. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -min >>> >> >
