sage-
From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:02 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
"3. In case the reporter feels the defect qualifies as a Blocker, they should
raise it as Blocker and c
ngly. Note, RM having the responsibility and
> authority to drive closure does not equate to veto power.
>
> Regards,
> Somesh
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:23 AM
> To: dev@cloudst
te, RM having the responsibility and authority
to drive closure does not equate to veto power.
Regards,
Somesh
-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:23 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for cr
cular issue.
> Ram Katru
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:57 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
> Ram,
>
> This is a marketing issue, not a relea
one of the features that users expect to be there. Remote Access
>> VPN is an example. Right now this functionality is broken.
>>>>
>>>> Ram Katru
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 2:19 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Koushik, that would be true if we had our upgrade process in order.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Koushik Das wrote:
> If there is
-----
> >> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:57 PM
> >> To: dev
> >> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
> >>
> >> Ram,
> >>
> >> This is a marketing issu
e. Right now this functionality is broken.
>>
>> Ram Katru
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:57 PM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>>
&
+1 I agree with Ram.
-Original Message-
From: Ramanath Katru [mailto:ramanath.ka...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 9:41 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Wow. I think we need a consensus here. When a feature needs to be
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Yes we can if there is a group of users that don't use it but are in dire need
far another feature. We just have to document and market it properly
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Ramanath Katru
wrote:
> Daan,
>
> I beg to differ
ogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:57 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
> Ram,
>
> This is a marketing issue, not a release issue. making a release or marketing
> it to the general public are two
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:57 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Ram,
This is a marketing issue, not a release issue. making a release or marketing
it to the general public are two
ng potential new
> users away.
>
> Ram Katru
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:54 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at
ase. If we do not evaluate
from a product perspective, then we will be turning potential new users away.
Ram Katru
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:54 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bu
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Somesh Naidu
wrote:
> I would like to add that while the # of users affected is definitely a
> major factor when ascertaining severity of an issue, should we not consider
> the technical scope and/or use-case of a defect. For example, let's say
> there is only one
Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:43 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
kewl,
Are you sure btw, the openoffice page does state that blockers first have
to be discussed on the mailing list, w
> Somesh
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 4:59 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
> Raja, Somesh,
>
> I want to revise my stand on this slightly; If w
Daan, that sounds perfect to me!
Regards,
Somesh
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 4:59 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Raja, Somesh,
I want to revise my stand on this slightly; If
categorization, I found this both relevant and helpful -
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Showstopper.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Somesh
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, Ju
I found this both relevant and helpful -
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Showstopper.
>
> Regards,
> Somesh
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:52 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Revisit Proc
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Raja Pullela wrote:
> My 2 years with this project, I don't remember there was a time when few
> folks have created a bunch of blockers with a malicious intent of blocking a
> release? We should approach to this as people create defects with a "good"
> intent.
gt; blocked but that is not this case: our release should be blocked is
> what blocker means to us. For all practical purposes we don't have a
> severity 'blocks user'.
>
>>
>> In addition, we'd have a guidelines on defect categorization for reference
>
-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:52 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Somesh, please see my replies in line;
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote:
> Daan,
>
> While I have the same
defect.
that is a very good idea.
>
> Regards,
> Somesh
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
> -1 bl
t.
Regards,
Somesh
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
-1 blocker means blocker and blocks a release. No one should be able
to block a release on thei
trix.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM
> To: CloudStack Dev
> Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
> Hi,
>
> I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker"
> defects. I heard and do understand that someone can
[mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM
To: CloudStack Dev
Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Hi,
I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker"
defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker d
Hi,
I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker"
defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect
and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the product.
I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time
28 matches
Mail list logo
