cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Date Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:47:17 GMT
Animesh

I personally believe 4 months cycle is too rapid and we need more time to Qa and fix all issues.

I'm finding issues constantly that automated tests missed.

My opinion,  we should release a stable product when it's ready,  hopefully following a 6
months cycle.

Regards
Ilya



-------- Original message --------
From: Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
Date:
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



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