cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:02:05 GMT
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
*	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 delivery

6 months:
Proponents (12): Will, Animesh, Edison, Frank, Min, Ilya, Kelven, Edison, Sudha, Radhika,
Nitin, Mice
*	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
*	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 fixing

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers []
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:24 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:22:58PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I see where David is coming from.
> >
> > The longer you leave a release branch, the harder it becomes to QA,
> > the harder it comes to test, and the harder it becomes to release. As
> > has been mentioned already, you can think of this as a "release cost".
> > More regular releases keep complexity down, and reduce anxiety over
> > "will my feature make the next release?" (Only applicable in a
> > time-based system, like we have it.)
> Indeed.  And frankly the longer the "QA" cycle, the less interest the
> community will have (seems to have) in resolving bugs from the pending
> feature release.  People move on, naturally, to the next feature they want to
> work on.
> Frankly this is the reason that I feel like we are still waiting to ship 4.1.0.
> -chip

View raw message