I don't think creating a branch will help in releasing faster. It will only make it worse in my opinion.
If we can release faster, features will stay in the PR branch for a short while and can be merged quickly. ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 28, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Daan Hoogland (daan.hoogl...@gmail.com) wrote: I'm with Mike on this. fixes go into the rc branch, features don't and that's a clearer line then we have now. or we could just keep rc'ing untill one passes and keep working on stablising whichever branch we choose for that allowing both features and fixes. On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tutkowski, Mike <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: Hi, I personally still like the idea of a new branch being created right around the time we cut our first RC. Even if people want to commit changes to the new branch, they should understand that that code won't be formally released until the pending RC is validated and released. That being the case, I would think those who choose to commit to the new branch will have a vested interest in the RC going out, as well. In any event, in addition to the current automated regression tests that are run, we still have a lot of tests that are not hooked into the build that are being run ad hoc (managed storage automated tests are an example). Additionally, we seem to have a lot of manual tests being run. Until we can deliver a framework in which we have a very high percentage of the system covered by automated tests, there is really no way we should consider monthly releases. I think we are still shooting for releases every four months, which seems fair given our current system. If we enact some deadlines like a code freeze going forward, that should help. With only blocker PRs going into subsequent RCs, we should be able to avoid a lot of unnecessary spin. I definitely want to point out that I appreciate everyone's time and effort. In particular, I want to be clear that it is not my intent to be critical of anyone who's been working in release management. My only goal with this chain of e-mails is to see if we can continue to improve the process. Thanks, everyone! Mike On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people actively participating in the release process. We have people who wants to have their code/features checked in. We, very clearly do not have enough people working on releases/blockers. How many of us are testing/voting on releases or PRs? We have blockers in jira, with no one to fix. We have PRs open for release blockers for more than a month with no one to test. I would ask everyone to start testing releases/PRs and voting on them actively. We need people who can do the work. We already know what needs to be done as outlined in the release principles wiki after long discussions on this list. Whether we create a branch off RC or continue on master wont change the current situation. We, as community should commit to testing and releasing code. principles and theory wont help. Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 27, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rafael Weingärtner (rafaelweingart...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to what Paul said. IMHO, as soon as we start a release candidate to close a version, all merges should stop (period); the only exceptions should be PRs that address specific problems in the RC. I always thought that we had a protocol for that [1]; maybe for this version, we have not followed it? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up#ReleaseprinciplesforApacheCloudStack4.6andup-Preparingnewrelease:masterfrozen On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> wrote: Hi All, >From my view point 'we' have been the architects of our own downfall. Once a code freeze is in place NO new features, NO enhancements should be going in. Once we're at an RC stage, NO new bug fixes other that for the blockers should be going in. that way the release gets out, and the next one can get going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd probably be on 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the new fixes in. People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not making the product better, they're stopping progress. As we can clearly see here. Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) ( http://www.shapeblue.com ) 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue -----Original Message----- From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3 I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and releasing it). I believe we should do the following: As we approach the first RC, we need to limit the number of PRs going into the branch (in order to stabilize it). If we had a super duper array of automated regression tests that ran against the code, then we might be able to avoid this, but our automated test suite is not extensive enough for us to do so. As we approach the first RC, only blockers and trivial (ex. text changes) PRs should be permitted in. Once we cut the first RC, create a new branch for ongoing dev work. In between RCs, we can only allow in code related to blocker PRs (or trivial text changes, as discussed before). What do people think? On 6/13/17, 4:56 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch only and merge forward On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens < williamstev...@gmail.com> wrote: I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are not blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately results in a longer RC process. It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well. On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> wrote: Thanks Mike, Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you. Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: Hi everyone, I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within 24 hours). Thanks! Mike On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>: Hi, I opened a PR against the most recent RC: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141 I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they pass (as noted in detail in the PR). If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from it, I’m +1 on the new RC as long as this is the only commit addedto it since the current RC. Thanks Mike! If this PR is good we should probably merge it asap and go for RC5. 4.10 should really be released by now. Wido Thanks! Mike On 6/9/17, 7:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: Hi everyone, I found a critical issue that was introduced into this RC since the most recent RC, so I am -1 on this RC. The fix for this ticket breaks the support for storing volume snapshots on primary storage (which is a feature managed storagecan support): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9685 Here is the SHA: 336df84f1787de962a67d0a34551f9027303040e At a high level, what it does is remove a row from the cloud.snapshot_store_ref table when a volume is deleted that hasone or more volume snapshots. This is fine for non-managed (traditional) storage; however, managed storage can store volume snapshots on primary storage, soremoving this row breaks that functionality. I can fix the problem that this commit introduced by looking at the primary storage that supports the volume snapshot andchecking the following: 1) Is this managed storage? 2) If yes, is the snapshot in question stored on that primary storage? The problem is I will be out of the office for a couple weeks and will not be able to address this until I return. We could revert the commit, but I still will not have time to run the managed-storage regression test suite until I return. On a side note, it looks like this commit was introduced since the most recent RC. I would argue that it was not a blocker andshould not have been placed into the new RC. We (as a community) tend to have a lot of code go in between RCs and that just increases the chances of introducing critical issues and thus delaying the release. We’ve gotten better at this over the years, but we should focus more on only allowing the entry of new code into a follow-on RC that is critical (or so trivial as to not at all be likely to introduce any problems…like fixing an error message). Thanks for your efforts on this, everyone! Mike On 6/9/17, 8:52 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: Hi Rajani, I will see if I can get all of my managed-storage testing (both automated and manual) done today. If not, we’ll need to seeif someone else can complete it before we OK this RC as I won’t be back in the office for a couple weeks. I’ll report back later today. Thanks, Mike On 6/9/17, 2:34 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> wrote: Yup. thats right. I dont know how it happened but, it created from the previous RC commit. The script is supposed to do a git pull. I didn't notice any failures. Not sure what went wrong. Thanks for finding it mike. I am creating RC4 now and cancelling this. ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: Hi Rajani, I don’t see the following PR in this RC: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098 I ran all of my managed-storage regression tests. They all passed with the exception of the one that led to PR 2098. As I examine the RC in a bit more detail, it sits on top of ed2f573, but I think it should sit on top of ed376fc. As a result, I am -1 on the RC. It takes me about a day to run all of the managed-storage regression tests and I am out of the office for the next couple weeks, so I’d really like to avoid another RC until I’m back and able to test the next RC. Thanks! Mike On 6/7/17, 4:36 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> wrote: Hi All, I've created 4.10.0.0 release with the following artifacts up for a vote: Git Branch and Commit SH: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27 Commit:a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27 Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170607T1407 Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same location): https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/ SystemVm Templates: http://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.10/RC3/ PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821): https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS Vote will be open for 72 hours. For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)" with their vote? [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, ~Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ -- Daan -- Rafael Weingärtner -- Daan
