To address the concern of RN we will not conclude the vote on RC (i.e. Not make a release) till the RN in general and upgrade instructions in particular are also of acceptable quality. As for other inconsistencies will work towards ironing those out.
-abhi On 15/11/13 3:30 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Abhinandan Prateek ><abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> As a RM I had agreed to Sebatian's suggestion of fixing the docs >>specially >> the upgrade section of it. >> And off course doing a GA after the docs are fixed is on the cards. >> >> As for the list of fixed and known issues I was told that a filter is >>good >> enough but it should be pretty easy to get the listing in the docs >>itself. >> If someone has specific preferences it is easy to fix that. >> >> So it boils down to get opinion from folks on the following: >> >> 1. RC build, this does not contain docs. I have seen no complains or >> issues here. > >That's fine, but releasing something without the upgrade instructions >committed is bad. >Even if the release of such upgrade instructions happen after the release >of the code. > >> >> 2. Putting a full listing of bug fixes in RN Vs a filter. Even I will >> think full listing is good or a query (instead of a URL?) >> > >I am in favor of consistency. Prior to 4.2 we listed all BUGS explicitly. >We should keep doing that. > >> 3. Upgrade instructions are known to be bad and we will have to wait at >> least till Wednesday to get these right. >> We have some volunteers already working on those and their effort is >> highly appreciated. > >Right, and since there is no rush, why not wait a bit till we can all >look this with cool heads, double check the RN, bugs listing, upgrade >instructions etc... > >> >> -abhi >> >> >> On 15/11/13 2:50 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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=tre >>>>>>>>e; >>>>>>>> f >>>>>>>> =re >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/head >>>>>>>>s/ >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> .2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >
