+1, but hopefully only those features already proposed are allowed.
In future lets move the code freeze date before the freeze date :), makes
life easier for folks scrambling to get their feature in.
Thanks,
-Nitin
On 04/06/13 10:47 AM, Prasanna Santhanam t...@apache.org wrote:
+0 - similar
+0
If proposed features are completed earlier then we shouldn't wait for 4 weeks.
-Koushik
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:30 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
I would vote +1 only if A) No new features B) Existing features should
continue to work and not cause for regression failures .
Thanks,
Sailaja.M
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:32 PM
To:
+1
-SWAMY
On 04/06/13 3:03 PM, Sailaja Mada sailaja.m...@citrix.com wrote:
I would vote +1 only if A) No new features B) Existing features should
continue to work and not cause for regression failures .
Thanks,
Sailaja.M
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers
: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
-0
Change to -0 as I suggest to wait for the merge of existing review requests in
days (48 or 72 hours).
-Wei
2013/5/31 Wei ZHOU ustcweiz...@gmail.com
-1
Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed.
From now
Reminder to please VOTE here. This vote will close tomorrow, and your
opinion counts.
-chip
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00:21AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Musayev, Ilya imusa...@webmd.net wrote:
How would this vote work? Is it consensus that wins?
Consensus would win if we had it. However, we don't, thus we have a vote.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
we have already defined the project rules for figuring out what to
+1 (not sure if my vote counts for anything since I'm not a committer)
To me it seems that many people spent a lot more time on 4.1 than expected,
so I think an extra 2 - 4 weeks for 4.2 would make sense.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013
+1 to move feature freeze date to 6/28 to get in the features proposed earlier
for 4.2 and have a longer bug fix cycle.
After moving 103 open 4.1 targeted defects to 4.2 we will have total of 367
open defects for 4.2. I hope with this change we are able to resolve lot more
defects before RC
-Original Message-
From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:htrippa...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:24 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
-1
Extending the release will mean even more features will be packed into
the 4.2
On Fri, May 31, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
Please respond with one of the following:
+1 : change the plan as listed above
+/-0 : no strong opinion, but leaning + or -
-1 : do not change the plan
This vote will remain open until Tuesday morning US eastern time.
-1 do not
with the extension.
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:32 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 to move feature freeze date to 6/28 to get in the features proposed
+1[binding] on pushing back feature freeze date.
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:00 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
Following our discussion on the proposal to
+1 [Binding]
It looks like there are a couple of last minute features that would make 4.1 a
superb release. I would say that we should not allow any new features that
haven't already been proposed and that the extension does not go beyond 4
weeks. If beyond that, I'm a -1.
Will
+1 [binding]
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:32 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 to move feature freeze date to 6/28 to get in the features
+1 [binding]
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Will Chan [mailto:will.c...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 11:08 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 [Binding]
It looks like there are a couple of last minute features
+1 [ binding ]
I've been concerned that releases every four months were too aggressive for
people to absorb given the complexity of some deployments and upgrades. With
the current 4.1 delay and 4.2 plan we would expect two major releases within
two months of each other. I'd prefer a bigger
-0 [binding]
I am torn between sticking to the schedule and delay to make sure we can merge
things cleanly.
Would rather not merge and release on-time, but it would be a pitty.
On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Kevin Kluge kevin.kl...@citrix.com wrote:
+1 [ binding ]
I've been concerned that
+1 because 4.2 will be delayed because 4.1 have been delayed
makes sense to me.
Basically, time based release focuses on time only, not quality or
feature. That's the nature of time based release, IMHO.
I'm not voting +1 for new feature, and at the same time, I
feel unfair to vote -1 for
+1 [Binding]
Regards,
Sateesh
-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:cloudst...@aprateek.com]
Sent: 04 June 2013 09:23
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 [binding].
-abhi
On 04/06/13 6:43 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI ka
+1
-Mice
-Original Message-
From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi [mailto:sateesh.chodapune...@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 12:04 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
+1 [Binding]
Regards,
Sateesh
-Original Message-
From
+0 - similar concerns as Sebastien. I hope that we also don't
introduce any new unproposed features, or architectural changes to 4.2
at the end of the cycle, which this extension still is.
Also - it's probably worth discussing a time based release with
milestones beyond which feature proposals
] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze
-0
Change to -0 as I suggest to wait for the merge of existing review
requests in days (48 or 72 hours).
-Wei
2013/5/31 Wei ZHOU ustcweiz...@gmail.com
-1
Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed.
From now, we'd better donot accept new
+1. I know we are time based, but I worry that the 4.1 delay is a sign that
we've simply got too much to do. 4 weeks seems like a good middle ground
between the 8 weeks lost in 4.1 and no extension at all.
On May 31, 2013 11:37 PM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com
wrote:
-0
I hope
-0
Change to -0 as I suggest to wait for the merge of existing review
requests in days (48 or 72 hours).
-Wei
2013/5/31 Wei ZHOU ustcweiz...@gmail.com
-1
Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed.
From now, we'd better donot accept new feature review requests,and
+1 for reasons state on the previous proposal thread.
On May 31, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze
date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well...
we have
-1
Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed.
From now, we'd better donot accept new feature review requests,and
create 4.2 branch after committing existed requests in short time.
-Wei
2013/5/31, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com:
Following our discussion on the
28 matches
Mail list logo
