Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Frank.Zhang@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.89 as permitted sender)
From: Frank Zhang <Frank.Zhang@citrix.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>,
	"cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:18:45 -0700
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month
Thread-Index: Ac4/nxCrzuuXJfVmRquxEkg4mF62iwADxFPAAABTIhA=
Message-ID: 
 <93099572B72EB341B81A644E134F240B01445E46081E@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <7A92FF96DF135843B4B608FB576BFC3E01431BA32ADE@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <7A92FF96DF135843B4B608FB576BFC3E01431BA32B77@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <7A92FF96DF135843B4B608FB576BFC3E01431BA32B77@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Before we have most of tests automated, 4 months release cycle seems too ti=
ght 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
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > -----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
>=20
> [Animesh>] Please provide your input.