cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:22:19 GMT
Same feelings here.

-min

On 4/22/13 4:18 PM, "Frank Zhang" <Frank.Zhang@citrix.com> wrote:

>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