cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: 4.5 RM
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:15:33 GMT
> IMHO we should not even release 4.5 until we have a agreed upon:
> -what our issues are and why we released 4.4 and 4.3 late.
> -taken action to resolve those issues
> -guarantees that 4.5 will be on time
> If we don't do that, I don't even know why we are putting ourselves through the pain
of a release schedule.

So I've been trying to give this some thought. Here's my current line
of thinking.

The issues with late releases are not a function of our release
process per se; but are instead a function of our development process.
CloudStack is a relatively large codebase. It has a lots of points
that interact with each other, and it's moderately complex.
Development moves forward and at least happy-path testing is done for
new features, but the range of options is so large that testing
everything is a bit difficult. When someone makes a merge request; I
suspect few people do much looking. Understandable, it's a boring
task; and really looking doesn't tell us much except for style and
egregious errors. We've rarely done mandatory testing of feature
branches before they are merged in. If you want to ship on time, you
must ensure that we are vociferously guarding the quality of the
master and release branches; that we can verify programmatically that
a commit or merge doesn't break things. We must insist on automated
testing being added.

So I've said all of that to say that I think that ship has sailed for
4.5. We are well past feature freeze; and we didn't really have any
gating functionality. We frankly have very little idea of quality of
whats in master right now. It's certainly worse than 4.4. So now we'll
enter code freeze, we'll try and play catch up and fix all of the
things we discover that are broken. And invariably, we'll be late

If you want to solve this problem; my personal belief is that its
really is tied to CI. Efforts around Travis are interesting and
perhaps are a piece of that puzzle. Discussions around running CI are
important as well, but I truly believe that we need a gating function
that prohibits commits that increase our level of untested code or
code that fails to pass testing. I've seen some other projects using
pull requests in github, and then using the github pull request
builder[1] for jenkins to verify that every PR works. I know we've
talked about gerrit previously, and perhaps that will work as well.


View raw message