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 animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.89 as permitted sender)
From: Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: 4.4 Feature Freeze
Thread-Topic: 4.4 Feature Freeze
Thread-Index: 
 Ac8yOe9tZHBYhgaWTTq5JfLGjU2FBwABJc1AABOJ8gAACAPmQAAM6nSw///EfICAAFgugIAAfZoAgAADUICAAAnWAIAAGm6AgAALmwCAAAaqgIAAIl8w///oViCAALyUgIABFfUAgADApQCAAB77gIAAUbyAgANoiwD//oE0UIAER/IAgAAukyA=
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:04:40 +0000
Message-ID: <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D2B25DB@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
References: 
 <CALB08otzbxrMwoscVb2nWozi1goaz73Es_sAxCk9EDwQ6EjkoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQtxvYq5vUEFU4BFo2guapGmvT1UGh8ovEDa1Dn29wqM9cTvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH+eU9edRi3yoQmQcYZfSbB_G-6e9KEy13E2-wefu32XeuVK+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <618327B1-7550-4EC1-9DB3-01FEF6B2B2A2@GMAIL.com>
 <CACOnxChy4Kf5mMhrKzuC7MX_3jGnYgi4M2QuKpgjeupnMvWmXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D2ACCC4@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <2ED5F94407CD5F4B9933B1AEC533F48A0E296A1E@SINPEX01CL03.citrite.net>
 <31C8F9FA-031A-4576-9963-B0CC77002ACC@stratosec.co>
 <CACOnxCgWJazb2yBRC7aVLJfixaZk2-vyGKFW5H1vK8s9-6KSVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2ED5F94407CD5F4B9933B1AEC533F48A0E29915D@SINPEX01CL03.citrite.net>
 <20140228091703.GA10836@cloud-2.local>
 <5BAF8EB9-3405-42A3-8E73-C64F341CB25D@GMAIL.com>
 <3CFE9905-AB1A-41E5-9622-5C2FABFE6C34@gmail.com>
 <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D2B187F@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <950F5343-4C2A-49B1-99E9-61BF0283BE5E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <950F5343-4C2A-49B1-99E9-61BF0283BE5E@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:45 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze
>=20
>=20
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>=20
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:13 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze
> >>
> >> My take is that we are slipping on RC and re-voting because we are
> >> forcing code into the release.
> >>
> > [Animesh] That is not right, for 4.3 I had called out feature freeze da=
te
> clearly and do not recall new feature added.  IMHO the one challenge as
> community that we have which has been raised earlier also is QA
> contribution is primarily coming from one organization. Most other folks
> start taking the release for a spin only after RC2/RC3 or so and then we =
see
> additional issues and more re-spins.  We really have to get all engaged i=
n
> testing much earlier in the cycle. Sudha used to call out for help on QA
> activity but in prior releases I don't think she got much volunteers. We =
have
> huge technical debt and that is not going to go away with pointing finger=
s. If
> a specific scenario is benefiting someone as a user/developer of CloudSta=
ck
> and it turns out is not guarded with automation sufficiently and regresse=
s in
> a release shouldn't the person using it also take some responsibility for
> safeguarding it with automation?
> >
>=20
>=20
> Of course everyone is a stakeholder in making CloudStack a high quality
> software.
>=20
> I am not pointing fingers at anyone I am just expressing my perception of
> what is going on. I have seen several things lately where it seems that w=
e
> prefer to put half-baked features in a major release rather than wait.
>=20
> Say we release every 6 months, since releases are far apart this puts str=
ess
> on the developer to put his feature "in" before feature freeze, perhaps
> sacrificing quality and testing. If we were to release more often then th=
e
> stress to "miss" a release would be alleviated.
[Animesh] I need some more time to rationalize and put together mu thoughts=
 on 6 months v/s 4 months. But my first priority is 4.3 so will come to it =
later
>=20
> I'd rather see/know that developers don't rush their features because the=
y
> know they can see it in less than 4 months then see features being added =
to
> a release in fear of missing a cycle.
>=20
> The issue of QA is another one. Personally I'd like to start testing a re=
lease
> branch once code has stabilized and I'd prefer to see a RM lock down on t=
he
> release before testing.=20
[Animesh] As soon as we did the first RC I had created the forward branch a=
nd 4.3 branch checkins were not allowed
What we have seen (and I'd be happy to be wrong), is
> lots of code changes -a lot of times without bug ids- even after an RC wa=
s
> out (even though this got corrected in the latest RC).=20
[Animesh] I hate that too, I had called out to many folks that we need a bu=
g ID for any cherry-pick.

When there is so much
> churn on a release so close to an RC being cut it really is not conducive=
 to
> testing. Maybe the churn is not an issue, but imho I would like to see ev=
ery
> commit being with a bug ID and being a direct decision of the RM.
[Animesh] Certainly once I have wrapped up 4.3 I will put a report for each=
 RC to help us analyze how can we improve. Even during RCs most feedback ca=
me from only a few handful of people, may be other community members were t=
esting but did not provide feedback but atleast from the data it does looks=
 like testing involvement even during RCs is limited. Once we get a -1 on R=
C I think people holdback on testing and then next RC we find something els=
e.
>=20
> -Sebastien