On 27/01/16 11:00 +, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:07 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the
idea to move it
> -Original Message-
> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:07 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on
> the
> idea to move it forward
&
On 01/27/2016 06:20 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>> In which way what you're proposing above is different from what we
>> currently have (ie: beta 1, 2 and 3)?
>
> we'd be communicating more strenuously to consumers that this was
> really meant to be a release that would be a very very very smooth
> up
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Goirand
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: January 26, 2016 at 12:48:09
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating
On 01/21/2016 02:38 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> That said, I'd like to see a different release cadence for cycles that are
> "stabilization cycles". We, as a community, are not using minor version
> numbers. During a stabilization cycle, I would like to see master be
> released around the 3 milestone
On 25/01/16 18:19 +0100, Ghe Rivero wrote:
Quoting Flavio Percoco (2016-01-25 16:06:36)
On 20/01/16 13:23 -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>Thoughts? Feedback?
Hey Folks,
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Great comments and proposals in the many replies.
I've gone through the whole thread and colle
Quoting Flavio Percoco (2016-01-25 16:06:36)
> On 20/01/16 13:23 -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >Thoughts? Feedback?
>
> Hey Folks,
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback. Great comments and proposals in the many
> replies.
> I've gone through the whole thread and collected the most common feedback.
On 20/01/16 13:23 -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Thoughts? Feedback?
Hey Folks,
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Great comments and proposals in the many replies.
I've gone through the whole thread and collected the most common feedback.
Here's the summary:
- The general idea of planning some sor
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:54 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Zane Bitter wrote:
> > [...] Honestly, it
> > sounds like the kind of thing you come up with when you've given
> > up.
>
> I tend to agree with that... I think healthy projects should
> naturally
> come up with bursts of feature addition
On 2016-01-22 13:54:22 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> As a lot of people said, ideally you would add features and repay
> technical debt continuously.
[...]
If we're pulling ideals into this, ideally we wouldn't _consider_
new features until we've reasonably stabilized the ones we al
Zane Bitter wrote:
[...] Honestly, it
sounds like the kind of thing you come up with when you've given up.
I tend to agree with that... I think healthy projects should naturally
come up with bursts of feature addition and bursts of repaying technical
debt. That is why I prefer not to be too p
On 22 January 2016 at 02:38, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 21 January 2016 at 07:38, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a solid proposal but I'm not sure what (if anything) the TC
>> needs to do about this. This is something most non-corporate open source
>> projects do (and even some corpo
Devananda van der Veen, on January 21, 2016 5:14 PM wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Flavio Percoco
mailto:fla...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discuss
On 21 January 2016 at 07:38, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>
> I think this is a solid proposal but I'm not sure what (if anything) the TC
> needs to do about this. This is something most non-corporate open source
> projects do (and even some corporate open source projects). It's the natural
> life-cycle
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
> cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing
> what
> topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One o
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:37:00PM +0100, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> Flavio Percoco wrote on 01/21/2016 09:13:02 AM:
[...]
First, positive remark(s):
Thanks for writing this up. FWIW, I support the notion of having
milestones focusing on stability, as opposed to explicitly declaring a
whole cycl
On 20/01/16 12:53, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started
discussing what
topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One of the
things that was rai
Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
So, I don't think it has to be the entire cycle. It could also be a couple of
milestones (or even just 1). Thing is, I believe this has to be communicated and
I want teams to know this is fine and they are encouraged to do so.
Tl;
tions\)"
> >
> > Date: 01/21/2016 01:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles:
> > Elaborating on the idea to move it forward
> >
> > On 21/01/16 11:22 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:23:02PM
Flavio Percoco wrote on 01/21/2016 09:13:02 AM:
> From: Flavio Percoco
> To: "Daniel P. Berrange"
> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)"
>
> Date: 01/21/2016 01:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization
On 21/01/16 16:50 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 21/01/16 11:55 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
As you said, projects can already decide to restrict feature
development in a given cycle, so this is nothing new. We only need to
communicate more aggressively that it is perfect
Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 21/01/16 11:55 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
As you said, projects can already decide to restrict feature
development in a given cycle, so this is nothing new. We only need to
communicate more aggressively that it is perfectly fine (and even
encouraged) to define the amou
On 01/21/2016 06:23 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
- It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features
In this thread we've had people recoil in shock at this ^ one...
- Economic impact on companies/market because no new features were
add
On Thu, Jan 21 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> So, I don't think it has to be the entire cycle. It could also be a couple of
> milestones (or even just 1). Thing is, I believe this has to be communicated
> and
> I want teams to know this is fine and they are encouraged to do so.
>
> Tl;DR: It's fin
On 21/01/16 12:00 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Hi fellows,
Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and
enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a
thought. I'll try to go through some of t
On 21/01/16 11:55 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Flavio Percoco wrote:
[...]
So, the above sounds quite vague, still but that's the idea. This email
is not a formal proposal but a starting point to move this conversation forward.
Is this something other teams would be interested in? Is this someth
On 21/01/16 11:22 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:23:02PM -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what
topics the overall
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:23:02PM -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
> cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing
> what
> topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effo
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
- It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features
In this thread we've had people recoil in shock at this ^ one...
- Economic impact on companies/market because no new features were added (?)
...but I have to say it was this ^
On Wed, Jan 20 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Hi fellows,
> Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and
> enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a
> thought. I'll try to go through some of the issues and benefits a
> stabilization
>
Flavio Percoco wrote:
[...]
So, the above sounds quite vague, still but that's the idea. This email
is not a formal proposal but a starting point to move this conversation forward.
Is this something other teams would be interested in? Is this something some
teams would be entirely against? Why?
Flavio Percoco wrote on 2016/01/20 08:23:02 AM:
From: Flavio Percoco
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: 2016/01/20 01:01 PM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating
on the idea to move it forward
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's dev
On 20/01/16 14:58 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 01/20/2016 01:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430:
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks s
] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the
idea to move it forward
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what
topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One o
On 01/20/2016 01:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430:
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what
topics the overall c
penstack.org
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the
> idea to move it forward
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
> > cross-project session. In this session
> From: Flavio Percoco
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Date: 2016/01/20 01:01 PM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating
> on the idea to move it forward
>
> Greetings,
>
> At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's developme
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Percoco
Reply: Flavio Percoco , OpenStack Development Mailing List
(not for usage questions)
Date: January 20, 2016 at 11:57:56
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the
idea to
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430:
> Greetings,
>
> At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
> cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing
> what
> topics the overall community could focus on as a shared
Greetings,
At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what
topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One of the
things that was raised during this session is the need of hav
40 matches
Mail list logo
