cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sudha Ponnaganti <>
Subject RE: In-Development Release Naming
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:34:25 GMT
Do you mean pre- release defects would retain code name  and Post release defects would have
a codename + release version??

-----Original Message-----
From: John Burwell [] 
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: In-Development Release Naming


Sorry, let this discussion fall off the bottom of my inbox.  I am assuming that folks only
set the "Affected Version/s" field when creating defects.  To my mind, we should only be setting
the "Fixed Version/s" field when we are closing a defect.  If we following this behavior,
why would any tickets need to be modified as part of the release process?  Once we know to
which version number a code name will resolve (i.e. when we cut the release branch @ code
freeze), it seems wise to add that information to the version label to assist defect reporters.
 Does that make sense?


On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Sudha Ponnaganti <> wrote:

> I definitely understand the easy aspect to carry over defects to version number for committers
and contributors.  But we should triage them and move them to future or next release and 
get ready for GA. That is one of GA readiness tasks. Below is simple workflow to explain the
reason what I am referring to. 
> - Codename gets created in defect tracking tool for release and dev 
> cycles happen
> - Code is hardened and ready to be released
> - Release version is decided and set in defect tracking tool
> - All GA readiness activities take place - Progressive defect triage 
> is one of the aspects that come to a closure including deferrals/ 0 in 
> dev and 0 in qa defects ( in ACS we do this steps a little differently 
> now)
> - GA is achieved
> - Post GA defects logged against release version
> Data from pre and post release metrics is fed in to initiatives that we take up for overall
improvement of quality goals for product.  I would think many of the members from community
are familiar with this model. But for operationally if this is easy for us to move defects
I am fine with it. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell []
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 7:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: In-Development Release Naming
> Sudha,
> I think it would make tickets easier to comprehend for the casual project contributor/follower.
 Additionally, the reality is that all tickets don't get closed during the development cycle.
 As I think through it, changing the JIRA release name when cut the branch to "x.y.z (codename)"
would make things easier to follow through the entire development cycle and ensure no tickets
carried over from the development cycle don't get lost in the cracks.  Does that make sense?
> Thanks,
> -John
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Sudha Ponnaganti <> wrote:
>> Yes - it can be changed in JIRA unless some workflow is set up not to do that in
>> However I think we can leave the defects logged before release with codename. I do
not see a reason that they should be moved to version number post GA. 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Burwell []
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:27 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: In-Development Release Naming
>> Sudha,
>> In JIRA, is it possible to change an exist release name?  If so, we use the code
name until the release is cut, and change the JIRA release name to x.y.z (codename) which
would make tracking consistent throughout the cycle.  Otherwise, as part of the branch creation
process, we could create a new release name as x.y.z (codename) and move all tickets with
the codename release name to the new release and remove the codename release from JIRA.
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>> On Jul 2, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Sudha Ponnaganti <>
>>> +1 to use code name during dev cycles and name the version for GA release for
reasons outlined by John B. When querying metrics also would help to identify which defects
are logged pre release and which came in post release i.e GA. 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Burwell []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:13 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: In-Development Release Naming
>>> Sebastien,
>>> Actually, you are completely correct.  When we cut a release branch, we know
the scope of change and can apply of the semantic versioning rules to service the correct
version number (i.e. whether to increment x, y, or z).  However, we have a 4 month period
of development on feature releases when we are communicating about our work, but don't yet
know whether the changes will require incrementing x or y.  For that period of time I am proposing
that we use a code name.  When we freeze, we evaluate the change and determine the version
number.  From that point on the release will referred to as either the codename or the release
number.  I think it would make sense in version strings that we display releases as x.y.z
(codename) to help people correlate the development period with the eventual release number.
>>> Thanks,
>>> -John
>>> On Jul 2, 2013, at 4:29 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <> wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/13 10:22 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Sebastien Goasguen<>wrote:
>>>>>> To me, codenames are confusing . I'd rather see a clear message 
>>>>>> like "we are bumping the release number to version x.y because of

>>>>>> this major feature...." than start talking about a " "gammaray"
>>>>>> pre-RC dev release that will later maybe become x.y but we are not
>>>>> Sebastien, It would seem to me that '4.2 pre-rc dev release that 
>>>>> may later become 5.0 but we are not sure.' is at the least not 
>>>>> less confusing. A 4.2 rc implies that the fact that there will be 
>>>>> a 4.2 is set, which is not true if the number is bumped.
>>>> Right, but we should know before cutting a "4.2" branch if it's 
>>>> really going to be 4.2 or not, from looking at JIRA and proposed 
>>>> features
>>>>> Other then that I agree that the fun of having a gammaray release 
>>>>> is rather thin as justification.
>>>>> regards,

View raw message