cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:30:32 GMT
I side with Dave and Chip on this one.  The 4 month dev cycle has forced CloudStack to own
up to its problems in planning, testing, and automation.  Until that has been settled, going
to a longer release cycle is actually not beneficial to this community.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi []
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:50 AM
> To:
> 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]

View raw message