On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com>
wrote:
> For listing down the fixed issues, since there are ~175 of these. I will
> list down some important fixes.
> Followed by the query to give a exhaustive list, is that acceptable ?
>
I know jira has an api, so you could easily query jira and automatically write
the list of fixed bugs in the CHANGES file.
we should automate this:
>>>import requests
>>>import pprint
>>> r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/filter/12325707')
>>> r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/search?jql=project+%3D+CLOUDSTACK+AND+type+%3D+Bug+AND+affectedVersion+in+(%224.2.0%22,+%224.2%22)+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%224.2.1%22+AND+resolution+!%3D+%22%5C%22Unresolved%5C%22%22+ORDER+BY+created+DESC,+priority+DESC,+key+ASC')
>>> pprint.pprint(r.json)
The ideal process is really that when a bug gets resolved, the person who
committed the patch to solve the bug should also update the CHANGES file.
> For known issues will look at the 4.3/4.2 open tickets list down the
> important ones.
>
> This will go in the CHANGES in source repo and RN in code repo.
>
>
> -abhi
>
> On 15/11/13 5:54 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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=tr
>>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>>> e;
>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>> =re
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lease-notes;h=8128d62c39236331492f3642914bf97b43ed2670;hb=refs/hea
>>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>>> s/
>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
