cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:47:10 GMT
Thanks for the great summary Animesh. Agree with Chip. Great thread. :)


On 26 April 2013 01:11, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> [1] http://producingoss.com/en/common-pitfalls.html#holy-wars
>



-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message