Hi Folks,
Hard rules can be hard to find in an environment like ours. J I think we need in some cases to have “expectations” and allow the release project to evaluate how those “expectations” are met. In other cases, the “expectations” are pretty straightforward. We need to somehow articulate our developmental and testing needs while making room for the fact that we are not in complete control of our dependencies. For example, I was on the OpenDaylight TSC call yesterday and they are considering a potential small delay in their release dates due to some “blockers” on OpenFlowPlugin and NetVirt specifically for HA. These blockers impact us directly. These issues may further result in a delay for the ODL release version to be built and made available. We have 2 options to take here: 1) Take an older version of ODL, that we know has issues directly related to our use of ODL. (carry these blocking bugs through Colorado 1.0) 2) Iterate our version and take in the release that fixes the blocking bugs. This relates very much to the fact that resolving issues in our own troubleshooting is for the most part dependent on upstream communities being able to resolve issues we identify. (or finding workarounds) In my mind it is very hard to find a “rule” we can apply here as each situation is different. For this example I believe the best way to solve this would be to have a phase at “code freeze” where we discuss issues and manage the patches that we allow into the release. Maybe this is something to consider for D release where David could arrange a small team that facilitates these decisions after code freeze. For now, David has only one recourse and that is to ask the TSC for a decision on patches and version stepping. I do hope however that we can work together for D to continue to drive for a methodology that keeps us from a massive rush in the last months but enables fast and efficient integration of new code… / Chris From: <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Ulrich Kleber <ulrich.kle...@huawei.com> Date: Friday 2 September 2016 at 11:09 To: David McBride <dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>, opnfv-project-leads <opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][hackfest] Release Milestone Review presentation Hi David, I remember we had some issues understanding the meaning of the “feature freeze” milestone. While reading again the lessons learned, I remembered that in former projects I worked on, we called that milestone “code complete”. These two words for me quickly associate that I should have now created my code, but would still be able to do some changes for fixing bugs. Just an idea. Maybe give it a thought.... Cheers, Uli From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of David McBride Sent: Wednesday, 24 August, 2016 20:55 To: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][hackfest] Release Milestone Review presentation Thanks to those of you that attended my presentation at the OPNFV Q3 Hackfest. The questions and feedback I received are welcome and very helpful. I've posted the presentation on the wiki. Let me know if you have additional questions or comments. David -- David McBride Release Manager, OPNFV Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org Skype: davidjmcbride1 IRC: dmcbride _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
