Re: [ovirt-devel] 3.5 Time-frame: pushing feature freeze

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, board(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:32:20 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] 3.5 Time-frame: pushing feature freeze > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:10:59AM -0400, Doron Fediuck wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: board(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:05:45 PM > > > Subject: Re: 3.5 Time-frame: pushing feature freeze > > > > > > On 05/29/2014 03:44 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > >> To: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com&gt;, board(a)ovirt.org, > > > >> devel(a)ovirt.org > > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:21:26 PM > > > >> Subject: Re: 3.5 Time-frame: pushing feature freeze > > > >> > > > >> On 05/28/2014 06:01 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> The current date for feature freeze is May 30. > > > >>> Based on today's weekly sync[1], it seems that most teams require > > > >>> additional 2 weeks to conclude current work. > > > >>> > > > >>> Therefore I suggest to set an updated FF milestone for June 15. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you need more time or think we should not change the current > > > >>> date please respond. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I think we should prioritize schedule over capacity. > > > >> Features which do not make it to FF can wait for the next release. > > > >> > > > >> I think that we should be more careful in the planning phase because > > > >> it > > > >> seems to be a recurring phenomena where people commit for features > > > >> they > > > >> know won't make it to FF - still these features get approved for the > > > >> release. > > > >> > > > >> I suggest to adopt a spec review phase, which would become part of the > > > >> planning phase, Here is the process (which is similar to some of the > > > >> openstack projects' process): > > > >> > > > >> 1. For each feature the owner would have to submit a spec file which > > > >> includes a description and details of the feature (like what feature > > > >> pages should include today - and mostly do not!). > > > >> > > > >> An example would be - > > > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron-sp... > > > >> > > > >> 2. The specs are getting reviews and hopefully approved after they > > > >> meet > > > >> some standards and make sense to add to oVirt. > > > >> > > > >> 3. Once a spec is approved it can be a candidate to include in the > > > >> release ( at this point the owner should have a good estimation on how > > > >> long it is going to take him to implement the proposed spec) > > > >> > > > >> 4. The release manager of the version should approve the spec for the > > > >> version according to the well known deadlines. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Livnat > > > >> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Doron > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] http://ovirt.org/meetings/ovirt/2014/ovirt.2014-05-28-14.01.txt > > > > > > > > Livnat, > > > > it seems that most other teams need the extra time based on yesterday's > > > > weekly sync, which included a network representative as well. > > > > So regardless of networking the rest of the version is not ready to > > > > freeze hence this is needed. > > > > > > > > > > This is not about a specific team status, this is more about our general > > > approach to deadlines which should be less flexible. > > > > > > > And I agreed we will not be flexible for next version, but currently > > most teams are not ready yet. This is the feedback we got in the sync > > meeting and it cannot be ignored. > > I don't think anybody suggests to ignore the feedback. As always, the > question is: is the release time-based, or feature based? > > It is not clear to me which are the features that block the release. > They should be named and prioritized. Otherwise, we'd slip dates > forever. > > The number of non-green features in the spreadsheet > http://bit.ly/17qBn6F does not match the numbers cited during the sync > meeting, so I am confused. > > On Vdsm side I find 5 features with code in advanced stages. jsonrpc and > import > data domain should probably block the release. I am not sure about the rest. > > infra 1079821 [RFE] Prevent host fencing while kdumping Code will be > in by end of May > infra 1081049 [RFE] replace XML-RPC communication (engine-vdsm) with > json-rpc based on bidirectional transport End of May > infra 1083645 [RFE][scale]: Replace the use of oop with ioprocess Code > will be in by Mid June > virt 1082479 disable spice file transfer & copy and paste packaging on > F19&F20 issues > storage 1083307 import existing data domain coding > > ================================== > > Can we agree on a definite list of feature that must block 3.5? > > gluster 1040795 Gluster Volume Capacity monitoring In Progress > gluster 1083583 Gluster Profile In Progress > > infra 1063095 [RFE][AAA] engine should have a generic LDAP provider Most > code already in. Finalization and fixes by mid June > infra 1090517 [RFE][AAA] Support anonymous bind for authn/authz Most > code already in. Finalization and fixes by mid June > infra 1090515 [RFE][AAA] Support for "hardened" AD environments with oVirt > Most code already in. Finalization and fixes by mid June > infra 1083993 [RFE] using foreman provider to provision bare-metal hosts > Code will be in by end of May > > infra-cli 855724 [RFE] ovirt-engine-restapi : Statistic values > representation issues In Progress > infra-sdk 1069204 [RFE] Don't require live engine to generate SDK code > In Progress > integration 1080402 Allow setup of iSCSI based storage for hosted engine > In Validation > integration-dwh 1080997 DWH running on separate host In Progress > integration-reports 1080998 reports running on separate host In > Progress > integration 1080992 websocket proxy running on separate host In > Validation > > storage 1083310 live merge (delete snapshot) coding > storage 1058160 VM Async Tasks via HSM coding > storage 1055640 Get rid of storage pool metadata on master storage domain > code review (90% complete) > storage 1086178 SANlock fencing design > > virt 1083059 "Instance types (new template handling) - adding flavours" > few things needs to be finished(perms,defaults,REST) > virt virtio-rng support on review > virt - finish remaining PPC support (block/allow specific features) > on review > > node 875088 ovirt-node-registration - a generic node registration ETA > end of May (in review) > node 1038616 ovirt node support for hosted engine nodes ETA end of > May (in review) > node 1053435 oVirt virtual appliance In progress > > sla 1036731 hosted engine on iscsi In progress- should be ready by Mid > June > sla 1084930 CPU SLA for capping In progress- should be ready by Mid > June > sla 1085049 I/O SLA for capping (blkio) In progress- should be ready > by Mid June > sla 1093051 Integrating with Opta Planner to demonstrate a balanced > cluster In progress- should be ready by Mid June > sla 1069303 NUMA support in oVirt In Progress- missing UI and REST. > sla 1062435 Implement REST API for oVirt scheduler In progress- should > be ready by 1st week of June > sla 1093038 Resource considerations for Migration in RHEV - memory Won't > make it. > sla 1093102 Reducing HA down-time In progress- should be ready by Mid > June > > Dan this is why we have the sync meeting, and this is where we discuss these issues as you know. There's no point of opening this now as the question is how much time we need to postpone and not if we wish to postpone. The suggestion is for June 15 and it seems to be acceptable to everyone attended the meeting yesterday. This mail was to give a headsup for those who did not attend the meeting and give a chance for folks to ask for additional time if needed. Based on yesterday's feedback. we updated the release page to the following schedule: http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.5_release-management If check the history you'll see that the GA date is the same.