--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubevirt-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubevirt-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubevirt-dev/CAOTosKLjvkYTC6nLChUkLTKxePc_VR06wUFffB-OKRcRLUwjtw%40mail.gmail.com.
Hello everyone,
I'm requesting a freeze exception for my VEP https://github.com/kubevirt/enhancements/pull/91.
I need more time to finalize the API design. This foundational work is critical for Incremental backup VEP (https://github.com/kubevirt/enhancements/issues/25).
We're currently in the final iteration of the API review, and a small extension is necessary to ensure the design is sound and ready for implementation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hi
regarding https://github.com/kubevirt/enhancements/pull/87
I require at least one more day to make sure the comments are resolved properly--On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 6:38 PM 'Vladik Romanovsky' via kubevirt-dev <kubevi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Hi everyone,--According to our release schedule, tomorrow (September 3rd) is the VEP freeze date for this cycle. However, many VEPs have not converged yet and are still being worked on.We've encountered several limitations this development cycle, such as summer schedules and team members being out, which have impacted progress.If you're working on a VEP that needs more time, please reply to this thread or send an email to the list requesting a freeze exception.Please include a brief explanation of the status and why an extension is needed.Thank you!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubevirt-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubevirt-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubevirt-dev/CAOTosKLjvkYTC6nLChUkLTKxePc_VR06wUFffB-OKRcRLUwjtw%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubevirt-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubevirt-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubevirt-dev/CAHjckwdR-XLHeDRpV3-h3FSQe4VZ26unY2srLMDExqD0KrS7Zw%40mail.gmail.com.
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
|
Thanks, Fabian.
Although a new thread with a new, distinct title would be better from my perspective.
One of the main ideas of the current VEP process is to concentrate the community efforts on prioritized tasks during the development cycle.
This begins with the design, when we should focus on reviewing the VEPs; implementation and review, when we should collaborate, review, and generally help get the PRs tied to the approved VEPs over the line; and finally, a stabilization phase.
One of the main obstacles right now, from my point of view, is that this process hasn't fully synced with the community's collective mind.
Some VEPs were open for a long period of time without any traction, and some were added very close to the VEP freeze.
You are suggesting doubling the number of design phases, but this will come at the cost of PR reviews.
Moreover, for larger features, it does take 8 to 10 weeks to develop, review, and merge.
From my point of view, creating another design phase for large features that don't align well with the release cycle will only create a distraction.
One thought I had was to create another review point for small (or even minor) VEPs whose review and implementation will not go beyond the declared code freeze.
But this is a half-baked idea.
That is only my personal view on the situation.
I hope others will express their opinions.
- Vladik