So the -1 is because of the lack of rn and upgrade path docs, right, I think I proposed earlier this thread to release after the doc hackathon privided that. I wasn't really explicit about it I think as no one commented on this strategy. Would that be acceptable to you all (especially David and Sebastien)?
I agree btw that docs must be available, but I don't think these have to be as stable as the release. We should allow for improving the docs on a release if needed. The net result of what I am proposing is that there will be a release and a docs rc. This is what the splitting of of the docs was about in my view,. Makes sense? If not, we should not try to make CCC Europe with 4.2.1. I think this is what the hurry is about Daan On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > I might be behind on the discussions here, but I will veto an RC that does > not have list of bugs fixed and proper upgrade path documented (minimum of a > fix from 4.2.0 upgrade docs). Separate repo of the docs or not. > > Right now I see that the bugs fix list points to a jira filter. This is not > consistent with the way it was done in prior releases (explicit listing) and > in 4.2 (which pointed to the RN). We need consistency. What happens if > someone changes this jira filter ? > > I also would like to see the results of the test matrix for 4.2.1 running > within jenkins.buildacloud.org. This > http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa/ runs against master and > has been failing for a while. > > PS: I did test it and did the usual smoke test > > so -1 (binding) at this time > > -sebastien > > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Except that the separation only helps if it allows RC testing + voting >> during doc finalization. If we announce before docs, it hurts us. >> I'm against another announcement that goes out with the docs in poor >> shape. >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> Unless there are objection to the RC, I would prefer to have it released >>> and make the announcement sooner and showcase in collab conference. As Chip >>> mentions docs were broken out separately anyway. >>> >>> Animesh >>> >>> >>> On 14/11/13 8:12 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release. >>>> >>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a >>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path >>>> etcŠthen testŠ. >>>> >>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then. >>>> >>>> -sebastien >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath >>>> <radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The master has the most up-to-date RN for 4.2.1. >>>>> >>>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:22 PM >>>>> To: CloudStack Dev >>>>> Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath >>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems the upgrade section of release notes will require a review, >>>>> probably followed by a revamp (?). >>>>> Can we have some volunteers who are familiar with various upgrade >>>>> paths comment on it ? >>>>> Me and Radhika will try to consolidate those comments, snippets and >>>>> fix the RN for 4.2.1. >>>>> >>>>> -abhi >>>>> >>>>> RN for 4.2.1 = >>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack-docs.git;a=tree;f >>>>> =re >>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/heads/4 >>>>> .2 >>>>> >>>> >>> >
