Hi Tim, Just a clarification. On the wiki I see this scenario listed for Colorado 1.0 - os-odl_l3-vpp-ha. Is this accurate or is it a noha scenario?
/ Chris Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 2, 2016, at 20:42, Tim Rozet <tro...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I don't see any issue here. Colorado 1.0 is set to use Beryllium, which is > already released. Even the scenarios that require Boron (FDS/SFC) do not > require ODL HA, and we already have Boron RC builds that work. ODL HA is > known to be buggy, so at least in Apex we don't enable it. > > Tim Rozet > Red Hat SDN Team > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David McBride" <dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> > To: "Christopher Price" <chrispric...@gmail.com> > Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org, "TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV" > <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 1:24:13 PM > Subject: Re: [opnfv-project-leads] [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][hackfest] > Release Milestone Review presentation > > Chris, > > As I understand it, some projects are planning to use Beryllium. Do we know > if the blockers effect both Beryllium and Boron, or is it just Boron? If it's > just Boron, then the projects that depend on Beryllium could release at > Colorado 1.0, while the projects that depend on Boron could release at > Colorado 2.0 or 3.0. > > In fact, I heard from Greg Elkinbard, yesterday, who said that scenarios > running on Fuel will be transitioning to Boron for Colorado 2.0. > > David > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Christopher Price < chrispric...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > -- > David McBride > Release Manager, OPNFV > Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 > Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org > Skype: davidjmcbride1 > IRC: dmcbride > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-project-leads mailing list > opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-project-leads _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
