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 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:11:15 GMT
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:02:05PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> Let me attempt to summarize this thread, if I missed any glaring points feel free to
bring them up
> 4 months:
> Proponents (9): Chip, Alex, David, Noah, Hugo, Joe,  Sebastian, Prasanna, Rohit
> Reasoning:
> *	We have not given proper shot to 4 month cycle, this was just the first time. Level
of automation has increased between 4.0 to 4.1 which lays groundwork for better automation
> *	Longer feature cycle will mean more features and bigger and more complex release
> *	Faster feedback loop to respond and address problems and shorter wait time for feature
> 6 months:
> Proponents (12): Will, Animesh, Edison, Frank, Min, Ilya, Kelven, Edison, Sudha, Radhika,
Nitin, Mice
> Reasoning:
> *	ACS currently has heavy reliance  on manual testing and majority of QA comes from 1
company. Shorter release cycle puts more dependence on  timely availability of QA to keep
up to quality goals
> *	ACS release is expected to be of good quality and support upgrades. Longer QA cycle
will mean more soak time and better quality. 
> *	Less overhead on release fixed cost work (release notes, generating release artifacts)
> *	Longer cycles also provides more flexibility in schedule for individuals in defect
> I still see there is difference of opinion and not a clear consensus with 12 out of 21
( approx. 60%) preferring 6 months.  But going by the argument of not having given proper
shot to 4 month cycle I will say we can keep 4.2 as a 4 month cycle and pull in all effort
to make it successful.  If it turns out that we can work with 4 month schedule that's well
and good otherwise we can bring this topic again based on the results of running 4 month cycle.
> If there is no objection I will proceed with creating 4.2 release page, dashboards etc.
on Monday
> Thanks
> Animesh

Well summarized, and the right way forward when there is no consensus to
change is to "stay the course".  I'm quite happy that this didn't
degenerate into a "holy war" [1] of sorts actually.  Well debated folks.

Yes, let's revisit after 4.2, and even possibly again after that.



View raw message