×2 mobile biligual spell checker used Op 15 nov. 2013 15:27 schreef "Chip Childers" <chipchild...@apache.org>:
> IMO, we should kill the CHAGES file and just get the release notes > document under control. I'm fine if "Changes" is in bad shape for > this release personally, as long as the release notes are accurate. > > Another thought to remind folks about in this thread: > > Changes to the cloudstack.git repo's 4.2 branch that we want to be in > the 4.2.1 release will cause a re-spin and re-vote. > > Changes to the documentation repo have nothing to do with the release > vote, except that we (as a community) seem to agree that our docs > should be at least updated and pushed to the website *before* > announcing 4.2.1. > > Make sense? > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Abhinandan Prateek > <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > >
