incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:40:54 GMT
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:34:35AM -0800, Kevin Kluge wrote:
>> I'd have a preference for 6 month releases.  Releases are a lot of
>> work and I'd prefer to spread that over fewer iterations per year.
>
> Presumably, releases will be less work once we do them a few times and
> keep adding automation.
>
> I'm not really picky about 6-month vs. 4-month, but I just wanted to
> point out that future releases should be easier than this one.

Six months seems like an eternity to me, though Kevin's point re level
of effort is worth acknowledging. Look at the past history of changes
within 6 month windows - they've been massive - if anything this
increases the QA burden at the end of a large development cycle, there
is greater surface area in which changes happen. I personally favor
release frequently and release often with smaller changesets.
Honestly the focus of the 4.0 release was largely getting the codebase
into shape from an ASF policy POV - but that doesn't diminish the
massive number of man hours invested into manually testing. IMO that's
not repeatable nor should we strive to make it routinely repeatable at
that scale. We were fortunate that the Citrix QA folks essentially
carved out man-weeks worth of time for us, but we can't guarantee that
they will equally be available to us, nor should the project be
dependent on them. We simply have to have automated testing that runs
continuously and thoroughly. The code base is too large and even to
people who have been hacking on it for years, it's depths are
occasionally unfathomable.

>
>> And I would just call them all major releases (versioning aside).
>> I'm thinking of something like Fedora.  We can independently decide to
>> do minor releases (presumably no features) in between the majors.  >
>
> Not sure I understand the distinction you're making here.
>
> In another thread, I think we were discussing monthly releases for minor
> releases. IMHO, that's a good schedule and we should try for a monthly
> release rather than trying to decide each one independently. (e.g.
> "well, do we have enough bugfixes for a point release now? How about
> now?" Etc.)

I think this is far more subjective. You don't issue a bugfix release
if there are no bugs to fix (unlikely that there will be no bugs, but
there might be no bugs that are worth fixing, or that people have
fixed) or alternatively we may discover a bug awful enough to demand a
faster release and only releasing on 'patch Tuesday' isn't in
everyone's best interest.

--David

Mime
View raw message