cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 03:07:46 GMT
Yes, changing the major or minor number will probably be locked down
after the feature freeze in my proposal.

- chip

Sent from my iPhone.

On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Marcus Sorensen <> wrote:

> I just reread this, and it sounds more like we decide what the version will
> be (major or minor) AFTER we know what's going into it. I'm OK with that of
> course, but we'll need some sort of definition to go by. I also think it
> may end up in favor of major revs more often than not.
> We could also do something else like align major revs with target
> platforms, e.g. 4.0 targets centos 6.x and Ubuntu 12.04, with minor revs
> being feature releases. That may help solidify the support life cycle as
> well, and we just rev when the next generation of platforms is chosen and
> tested.
> On Oct 31, 2012 7:02 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" <> wrote:
>> +1, this would line up nicely with having a major rev once a year with 2
>> or 3 minor revisions in between.
>> Then maybe once a month someone rolls up any applicable bugfixes and we do
>> a point release? Do we want to have some procedure around that, like a mini
>> vote?
>> On Oct 31, 2012 6:26 PM, "Chip Childers" <>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM, David Nalley <> wrote:
>>>> So I think we have consensus around a few things already - lets
>>>> highlight those:
>>>> * Time based releases
>>>> * Versioning scheme:
>>>> X.Y.Z
>>>> - X : increases when there is a "major" change in architecture or some
>>>> major new feature
>>>> - Y : increases with every release every 6 month (reset when X
>>> increases)
>>>> - Z : increases when there are "must fix bugs" or annoying bugs that
>>>> get fixed in a release branch (reset when Y increases)
>>>> ===== What we don't yet have consensus on =====
>>>> * What the time period is on releases
>>> Digging this out of the past, IIRC, we never got around to resolving
>>> the time period for releases.  We should come to a conclusion on this
>>> topic!  I'd like to propose that we follow a 4 month release cycle for
>>> non-bug fix releases.
>>> Generally, it would mean a schedule that would look something like
>>> this (M=Month and W=Week):
>>> M1 through M2 - Features are being developed in branches, and merged
>>> into master over the course of these two months
>>> M2 W4 - Feature freeze (and release branch is cut).
>>> M3 W1 through M4 W1 - Doc Updates and Testing
>>> M4 W1 - Docs Freeze
>>> M4 W2 - Final regression testing / bug fixes / doc fixes
>>> M4 W3 - First RC cut and opened for voting...  Wash rince repeat until
>>> an RC is voted to be released
>>> This proposal might lean a bit heavily towards documentation and
>>> testing, but my opinion is that features are going to be developed
>>> outside of this release cycle.  What matters, is when they land in
>>> master, and when they are scheduled to be released.  IMO, this type of
>>> schedule provides us with the ability to have predictable periods of
>>> time for stabilization and documentation.
>>> If the actual time period of the release is something other than 4
>>> months, then I would argue for a similar schedule in the ramp up to
>>> the first RC.
>>> If we can reach a consensus on this, I'll be happy to draft up a
>>> schedule with specific dates for our 4.1.0 release.
>>> Thoughts, comments, flames?
>>> -chip
>>>> * What the version number for the first Apache release should be (to
>>>> be fair we haven't really discussed this.)
>>>> So lets start with the easy one, the version number - should we target
>>>> 3.1.0 or 4.0.0 or something else entirely? I could be swayed either
>>>> way.
>>>> On the release time period - as a packager for 20-30 packages in
>>>> Fedora I am certainly sympathetic to release cycles, and realize that
>>>> virtually all of the community distros (save Debian which is on a two
>>>> year release cycle) are on a 6 month cycle. That said I don't know
>>>> that we can necessarily be married to what the distros are doing. I
>>>> also look at projects like subversion which are tossing out releases
>>>> approximately every 60 days - and I don't see any distro that doesn't
>>>> carry subversion (though admittedly very different projects in
>>>> virtually every respect) I think every 3-4 months makes sense to me,
>>>> but again that's just me - gives us a slightly faster iteration but
>>>> hopefully not removing towards an unmanageable release cycle speed.
>>>> Another question is - how long do we support any given release
>>>> line......e.g. if I embark on 5.2.0 (completely made up version
>>>> number, but assuming the above version scheme) how long will I be
>>>> guaranteed bugfixes for 5.2.x. Perhaps it's too soon to even ask that
>>>> question - we haven't even pushed a single release out, but something
>>>> to think about.
>>>> Thoughts, comments, flames?
>>>> --David

View raw message