I don't use CLVM any more, and I have no idea how many people do. I'm relatively certain that some do, because of past questions/bug reports. Regardless, I don't think it should be decided based on someone's guess at how many people it will impact, but instead on whether we are willing to ship regressions for the sake of a time based release. If we had some hard data it could be useful, but since we don't I think we have to assume the worst. On Sep 6, 2013 2:55 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 08:18:35PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 10:21 AM > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round) > > > > > > Animesh, > > > > > > I'd ask that this vote stay open until EOD Monday. I've tested the > > > basic sig / artifact, but I want an opportunity to run it in an actual > > > environment before formally voting. > > [Animesh>] Sure I can keep the VOTE open until Monday. > > > > > > Also, there is an issue being raised by Marcus (that Edison was going > to > > > look into) in another thread around the CPVM. Is this a blocker issue? > > [Animesh>]Edison is working on a fix and will put in 4.2-forward branch. > I am not sure who else uses CLVM to access the broader impact, if it is > Marcus and he is fine with using Edison's fix in his environment than not > an issue. > > Ha... I thought it was around the cPvm, not cLvm. > > Anyway, I guess it's up to Marcus (and others) to vote accordingly WRT > there concern about this issue. > > Thanks for holding off until EOD Monday for me (and perhaps others) to > vote! > > -chip >
