cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Moody <j...@fifthecho.com>
Subject Re: Minor releases!
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:55:15 GMT
While the pretty pictures iare helpful, it's explaining the git
merging/branching strategy which if I were to show to a non-
developmentally aware coworker, they may be overwhelmed or confused by.

I was unaware that 4.7.0 == 4.6.2 and try and follow development pretty
actively.
I also think that while the new release strategy is awesome and _I_
love the faster releases, making this change halfway through the 4.x
release cycle is also confusing.

It might be worthwhile to make 4.8 or 4.9 be ACS 5.0 and as a part of
the release notes make a less-technical overview of how the release
process has changed and how releases are handled moving forward as,
while 5.0 may not be a major feature release (following semver) it is a
radical shift in how ACS is released to the public.

For the pretty picture, I think a graphic showing the previous release
process of branches off of branches off of branches would help provide
a valuable comparison as to why the current process is better and more
reliable than the previous process.


On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 16:39 +0000, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> This page has pretty pictures:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+princi
> ples+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/01/16 17:37, "sebgoa" <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.c
> > om> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On 07/01/16 17:22, "Rene Moser" <mail@renemoser.net> wrote:
> > > > No, it is not the pace. You can do as many major as often as
> > > > you want
> > > > but if one uses this major, how long will it get minors? We
> > > > have no clue.
> > > > 
> > > > I understand your point completely while my argument is that I
> > > > have to
> > > > plan releases year by year.
> > > > 
> > > > Under this condition I'd take the LTS of the releases, the most
> > > > stable
> > > > one even its 2 years old, (I have to maintain it for a year),
> > > > not the
> > > > latest one, for sure not a .0 release.
> > > > 
> > > > With that mindset, there is no version for me right now.
> > > 
> > > I see your point. To me this is not a sustainable model, but if
> > > you want to keep doing this the only option I see is finding a RM
> > > for your specific release.
> > > 
> > > And as a matter of fact, 4.7.0 == 4.6.2 so that .0 might be the
> > > best .0 release we ever had. Don’t underestimate the change that
> > > was made. Releases now build on top of each other, while that was
> > > never the case. 
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I cannot and don’t want to convince you. We want
> > > something different and that is fine. What I do want to know is
> > > what others want. Because if the majority wants what you are
> > > asking for, we should do that. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Remi, I think Rene might have a point, that while things are clear
> > for you, the fact that 4.7.0 == 4.6.2 may be lost on other folks
> > that are used to the old ways.
> > 
> > Maybe we need a picture or something...
> > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Remi
> > 

Mime
View raw message