Ok, will make a exhaustive listing and see if it can be automated for
future releases.
On 15/11/13 6:41 pm, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>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/123257
>>>>07')
>>>>
>>>>r=requests.get('https://issues.apache.org/jira/rest/api/2/search?jql=pr
>>>>oject+%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%5
>>>>C%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/h
>>>>>>>>>>>ea
>>>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>>>> s/
>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
