Ok I will go that way till someone says that listing 175 tickets in CHANGES file will needlessly clutter it. Can we focus the list to blockers and criticals at least ?
-abhi On 15/11/13 6:34 pm, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >Abihnandan, > >Why not include the output of the query instead of the query? I think >this is what Sebastien means. A list of the important ones can still >be prepended in more readable form afaic. > >Daan > >On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, 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 ? >> >> 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/h >>>>>>>>>>>ea >>>>>>>>>>>d >>>>>>>>>>>s/ >>>>>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>>>>> .2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
