cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:25:49 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
> 
> 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 delivery
> >
> >
> > 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 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 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.
> 
> -chip
[Animesh>] Ross is really the bible  :) 
> 
> [1] http://producingoss.com/en/common-pitfalls.html#holy-wars

Mime
View raw message