cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Zhang <Frank.Zh...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:18:45 GMT
Before we have most of tests automated, 4 months release cycle seems too tight to me

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:08 PM
> 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