[QE][ACTION REQUIRED] oVirt 3.6.0 status
Hi, Release criteria discussion has been closed with last week oVirt sync meeting [1]. Release management for 3.6.0 [2] will soon be updated with the accepted changes in release criteria. The remaining key milestones for this release must now be scheduled. For reference, external project schedules we're tracking are: Fedora 21: 2014-12-09 Fedora 22: 2015-XX-XX GlusterFS 3.7: 2015-04-29 OpenStack Kilo: 2015-04-30 Two different proposals have been made about above scheduling [3]: 1) extend the cycle to 10 months for allowing to include a large feature set 2) reduce the cycle to less than 6 months and split features over 3.6 and 3.7 Feature proposed for 3.6.0 must now be collected in the 3.6 Google doc [4] and reviewed by maintainers. The tracker bug for 3.6.0 [5] currently shows no blockers. There are 453 bugs [6] targeted to 3.6.0. Excluding node and documentation bugs we have 430 bugs [7] targeted to 3.6.0. [1] http://resources.ovirt.org/meetings/ovirt/2014/ovirt.2014-11-26-15.07.log.ht... [2] http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.6_Release_Management [3] http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2014-November/028875.html [4] http://goo.gl/9X3G49 [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155425 [6] http://goo.gl/zwkF3r [7] http://goo.gl/ZbUiMc -- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
--Sig_/GH3L.tkXVlbyS4P_wCibt4B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:19 +0100 Sandro wrote: SB> Two different proposals have been made about above scheduling [3]: SB> 1) extend the cycle to 10 months for allowing to include a large SB> feature set 2) reduce the cycle to less than 6 months and split SB> features over 3.6 and 3.7 I'd prefer a six-month cycle, so that the smaller features and enhancements come more quickly. Robert --=20 Senior Software Engineer @ Parsons --Sig_/GH3L.tkXVlbyS4P_wCibt4B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlR/t90ACgkQ7/fVLLY1mng0UACeNaKuT76QbrRWxHfvd8whnmsw LbEAoJPOJpv4UAq36Yak1pV42TvR5zVF =ISna -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/GH3L.tkXVlbyS4P_wCibt4B--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/12/14 02:24, Robert Story wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:19 +0100 Sandro wrote: SB> Two different proposals have been made about above scheduling [3]: SB> 1) extend the cycle to 10 months for allowing to include a large SB> feature set 2) reduce the cycle to less than 6 months and split SB> features over 3.6 and 3.7
I'd prefer a six-month cycle, so that the smaller features and enhancements come more quickly.
If I read Sandro correct your choice is not in the given alternatives? Would this be an third option? to neither decrease nor increase the release cycle? - -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUgBj8AAoJEC5d3lL7/I9ziM4P/3PW2jvgdu0r2taPRTnE9JIc aynKs/cOd6+edomalFSnhjCIwYJi6i37VMwINO+M8NMAUozQetYbXw4D2jjKk9pN 4foe04KqxobUAMtpbLn0C1WRYRUchE335g2GYNHPgn5gvZuiYHUBojqUepf0881F f+k+sKaCJrAA3d2x4bytokr/altJo+eiSdWEbzejBF/2tekYBAFxwiFT6pTRupoO EUQGMvU73ahBKZj1gI57Bx38IlfT0BVaLoeZfvy/9Y/sveaXLcTX/aO9YCh41edG Ym6biG5mQiaRW/XpapNqRZkHUuxBucF1ZHdL5kB1uB01D8IRUAjaZD1kXPXRKY9Y RBGt0HWK/Wf8n9x+pIhnOmanx+hvHiX/cyk13Sf+0vTljenOOsZDt6VMUt9ey03R eozZgd67PuVrcln2hmOJqG2FP5BkYMmVrXWWGV/nj2iV0N0j99LqES/FasX+Kmuf MRS2bRyubLBu+rWjp0gecw1OOw20ENfFshu27NDNhWFgLqvBpClQek/wlncqrVTw tp7eBNPt7i/tWR19TdzCw18/5SnchzKQpAPZh059uZK1+78H+UhubO9JNH+kUDzc 5JDNYH1g2zU0pEBKU/nMl3VRI5gPOgWspXTr4L6oMvJyeXq6MYQwpqhes5AlJ0wK RbG2OMdnR2ql1SblsPkg =0sJT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Il 04/12/2014 09:19, Sven Kieske ha scritto:
On 04/12/14 02:24, Robert Story wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:19 +0100 Sandro wrote: SB> Two different proposals have been made about above scheduling [3]: SB> 1) extend the cycle to 10 months for allowing to include a large SB> feature set 2) reduce the cycle to less than 6 months and split SB> features over 3.6 and 3.7
I'd prefer a six-month cycle, so that the smaller features and enhancements come more quickly.
If I read Sandro correct your choice is not in the given alternatives? Would this be an third option? to neither decrease nor increase the release cycle?
Keeping current is what we'll have if we won't have agreements :-) Let's wait a couple of weeks for gathering the full feature list and have a better picture of how much time it will take to get them in.
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
participants (3)
-
Robert Story -
Sandro Bonazzola -
Sven Kieske