cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:18:48 GMT
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:55:50AM -0700, Will Chan wrote:
> Again, I am not disputing that more features will make it in given Dave's argument. 
In fact, I'm not really that keen on using the fixed cost of release mgmt. for the reason
of the move as well.   Heck, I'm not even sure a 6 month cycle would fix any of the issues
that have already been outlined but it'd be nice to try.  However, I do know a couple of things:
> 1. We all want CS releases to be of certain quality.  It needs to work and upgrades need
to work.

+1 - Absolutely

> 2. ACS still relies too heavily on manual testing and most of it unfortunately comes
from 1 company.  We cannot be dependent on another company's schedule to ensure ACS has gone
through enough proper testing to achieve (1). 

Also agreed, but this only relates to release schedule for regression
and upgrade testing really.  Feature testing is something that should /
can be handled prior to a merge in my mind.

> 3. Most importantly, the extra 2 months will give QA more time, give features more time
to settle in, and more automated tests to be written for existing features as well.  I agree
with Dave that more feature will come in.  So what?  If they are not of good enough quality,
we don't release it as part of the ACS release.  However, that extra 2 month will give earlier
written features more time to be potentially tested and used by people so that we fix the
most egregious bugs before we ship it.  It will also better accommodate people's schedule
so they can fix bugs for their features.  

How do you see the release schedule laying out with multiple releases
over the course of time?  What overlaps exist?

We *really should not* plan on blocking new features from coming into
master as they are completed.  That's just an inhibitor to progress.
Given that assumption, I fail to see how the we would be doing anything
*but* increasing the overall change size by increasing the time between
feature releases.  That leads to increased "cost of release".

> Personally, so far, I feel 4 months seems a bit rushed.
> Will

View raw message