On Jun 22, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Rafael Fonseca <rsafons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sebastien, thx for following up so quickly :) > > It's because it's a big change that i think it should be done in a major > release an not a minor, We all agree on this. Such as change is for a major release. The question is 4.6 or 4.7 ... > nevertheless it will be up to the community to > decide if we should ship it in 4.6.0 of wait for a long time to have this > in. > > I've been waiting a long time for that larger discussion, the currently > open PR is already the second proposal to improve packaging and the > previous one was open for over a month.. so i wonder how long it will take > to let everyone take advantage of it, since the code is all ready to > ship... if anyone can see a reason or a fix that might not be what they > want, i can just amend whatever quickly... but other than the mysql issue, > i don't know what would conflict with anyone's interest.. though feel free > to show me otherwise :) > > Like i said on the PR, this is still not all the changes i'd like to make > to get a cleaner packaging config, but whatever aesthetical or maintainer > helpfulness is still needed to be done, can be done later along the path, > while providing the functionality earlier to everyone. Even if we > eventually decide to go for a completely different packaging structure like > using a proper makefile or something like that, most of the cleanup done in > this PR will just make that switch easier ;) > > For me it will just be a few hours of work to chop it all into pieces and > explain what each bit does, so just let me know if i should focus on this > straight away or leave it for later and focus on some more needed fixes not > related to packaging that everyone should agree to get into releases ASAP. > We need to start testing master (a.k.a) 4.6 , identify blockers through testing and see what needs to get fixed. I have not had the time to check JIRA, to see if it's already with a 4.6 release and if we already have 4.6 blockers. > Looking forward for Pyr's input on this :) > Since he is the one who mentioned this feature, I am hoping he can comment soon on it. -sebastien > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:28 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 22, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Rafael Fonseca <rsafons...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I plan on getting started on dissecting the embedded Tomcat/Jetty PR this >>> week, it would be nice to get it into 4.6.0, since it's quite a change in >>> functional packaging to do it in a minor like 4.6.1 (documentation wise >> and >>> stuff), and i guess 4.7.0 is still far down the road. >> >> Rafael, let me copy Pierre-Yves who talked about this new packaging. >> >> I don't think we should try to put it in 4.6.0, it's too big of change, >> and should really be part of a larger discussion on >> re-packaging/re-architecture of several things. >> >> Hopefully Pyr can chime in. >> >> -sebastien >> >>> Want to hold off on 4.6.0 until that is chopped to pieces and made easy >> to >>> review? Should be able to do it in a couple of days. >>> I will also remove the mysql bit for now so there are no conflicting >>> opinions, will revisit that issue further down the road.. as someone very >>> well versed in Apache licensing explained to me (thanks Leo), we can get >>> that done, just not by default and provide a switch to include that >>> functionality so that third party rpm/deb distributors (non-Apache) can >> use >>> that. This will also require some classpath changes based on that switch, >>> so will think about it later. >>> Everyone in agreement with this? I'm sure quite a few people have been >>> waiting on it for sometime, so would be nice to include in this release >> imo >>> :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Rafael >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Funs Kessen <f...@barred.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Seb, >>>> >>>> Great way of wording it, and I completely agree! You should be able to >>>> pick up master and roll it out into production and keep running with it! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Funs >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 23:43, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 6:43 PM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Why are we averse to cutting a release stabilization branch? In the >>>> past, we have cut release stabilization branches to ensure that the flow >>>> contributions was not interrupted. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree. >>>>> >>>>> We have cut branches that way because that’s how Citrix delivers >>>> software. It develops on master, cuts a branch and put a QA team to >> work to >>>> stabilize and make a release. >>>>> >>>>> I believe it’s a broken model for an open source community made of >>>> mostly volunteers. We don’t have the luxury to QA a release branch and >>>> loose that effort (because it does not go back to master). >>>>> >>>>> In addition, this process has led to many regression, because there >>>> is/was a disconnect between the Qa team and the guys developing on >> master. >>>> Plus bad practice when bugs gets fixed. i.e we fix a bug in a release >>>> branch but don’t port it in master. >>>>> >>>>> That’s why we have talked about this at length for almost a year now, >>>> alas without resolution ( I thought we had, but your email indicates >>>> otherwise, too bad you did not chime in earlier). >>>>> >>>>> I am advocating for us to stabilize master and gate master. So that >>>> whenever we release we can do it starting from a stabilized branch. >> Instead >>>> of having to reinvest time in lengthy QA. >>>>> >>>>> I want us to be able to release at anytime, when we feel like it and as >>>> soon as someone says I want this fix/feature that was just merged in >>>> master. Right no we cannot do that. >>>>> >>>>> So yes call me crazy, I want the developers to take it onto themselves >>>> to keep their forks in sync with master, develop on their fork. And I >> want >>>> master to be the release branch. We will be able to build up a release >>>> through PR from devs with limited merge conflicts. So that we reach a >> point >>>> where master is QA at all time and we don’t loose any investment made >> in QA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> For committers, it is not a big deal since they can manage their >>>> branches in the cloudstack repo. However, for non-committers, this >> freeze >>>> could cause unnecessary frustration and discourage further >> contributions. >>>>> >>>>> A freeze means only the RMs will commit on master. any PR from anyone >>>> welcome and let the discussions happen on whether to merge or not…no >>>> frustration. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> -John >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:33 AM >>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: 4.6 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 11:45 PM, Remi Bergsma <r...@remi.nl> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can jump in and work with Rohit and Daan to make 4.6 happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for the QA on master. It would be best if we could then all focus >>>> on stabilizing 4.6 aka master and wait with refactor stuff and new >> features >>>> until 4.6 is out, which is the start of 4.7. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand, building new features in the mean time isn't a big >>>> issue, as rebasing to a master that gets more stable every day is much >>>> easier than it is today I'd say. You just cannot merge new stuff until >> 4.6 >>>> is out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's write down some guidelines and see if this approach makes >> sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe that's something that you can do at the meetup today and bring >> it >>>> back to the list as a proposal ? >>>>>> >>>>>> When I talk about freeze I am thinking just letting the RMs commit on >>>> master, everyone who wants something in 4.6 should submit a PR. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, Remi >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08 Jun 2015, at 21:43, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We need to freeze 4.6 asap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I originally agreed to RM 4.6 and Daan also stepped up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I would like to work on doing a release of ec2stack and >> gcestack, >>>> so I will step down from 4.6 RM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anybody wants to jump in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is already a ton of things in 4.6 and we need to release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ideally we also need to QA directly on master, so that we can build >>>> 4.7 on top of a stable release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -sebastien >>>>>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related >>>> services >>>>>> >>>>>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build< >>>> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> >>>>>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework< >> http://shapeblue.com/csforge/ >>>>> >>>>>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> >>>>>> CloudStack Software Engineering< >>>> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> >>>>>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support< >>>> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> >>>>>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses< >>>> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> >>>>>> >>>>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are >>>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. >> Any >>>> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not >>>> necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If >> you >>>> are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any >>>> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please >>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. >>>> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue >>>> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated >> under >>>> license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a >>>> company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape >>>> Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic >> of >>>> South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue >> is >>>> a registered trademark. >>>>> >>>> >>>> — >>>> =Funs >>>> >>>> >> >>
