cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mice Xia" <mice_...@tcloudcomputing.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:03:22 GMT
+1 for 6 months, leave buffer for testing and bug fixing

-Mice

-----Original Message-----
From: Radhika Puthiyetath [mailto:radhika.puthiyetath@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:36 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month

+ 1 for 6 months

From documentation perspective, it gives the doc contributors ample time to play around with
the features; accommodate all the review cycles (unit tests, technical, and editorial if that
applies); fix more number of defects.

-----Original Message-----
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:38 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:20 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
> 
> Folks
> 
> We started discussing 4 month v/s 6 month release cycle in a another 
> thread [1]. Since the subject of that thread was different, community 
> may not have participated in this important discussion fully. I am  
> are bringing this discussion to its own thread. Here is the summary so 
> far please refer to [1] for more details.
> 
> Summary of discussion:
> - Animesh pointed out the technical debt that we have accumulated so 
> far needs extra time to resolve
> - David, Chip favor shorter release cycle of 4 month and keeping 
> master always stable and in good quality and enhancing automation as a 
> solution to reduce QA manual effort. A focused defect fixing activity 
> may be needed to reduce technical debt
> - Will brought up several points in the discussion: He called out 
> heavy dependence on manual QA for a release and pointed out that 
> manual QA may not be always available to match up ACS release 
> schedule. Release overhead for 4 month release is still high and 
> suggest that moving to 6 month will save on release overhead and that  time can be used
for strengthening automation.
>  - Joe agrees partly in release overhead being significant for major 
> release
> 
> If I missed out  any important point please feel free to bring into the thread.
> 
> There were some other discussion in [1] on release planning conference 
> and chip's clarification on time based v/s feature based releases but 
> we will not discuss those in this thread. Community has agreed to 
> time-based release already.
> 
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/6suq2fhltdvgvcxd

[Animesh>] Please provide your input.
Mime
View raw message