Folks We started discussing 4 month v/s 6 month release cycle in a another thread [1]. Since the subject of that thread was different, community may not have participated in this important discussion fully. I am are bringing this discussion to its own thread. Here is the summary so far please refer to [1] for more details.
Summary of discussion: - Animesh pointed out the technical debt that we have accumulated so far needs extra time to resolve - David, Chip favor shorter release cycle of 4 month and keeping master always stable and in good quality and enhancing automation as a solution to reduce QA manual effort. A focused defect fixing activity may be needed to reduce technical debt - Will brought up several points in the discussion: He called out heavy dependence on manual QA for a release and pointed out that manual QA may not be always available to match up ACS release schedule. Release overhead for 4 month release is still high and suggest that moving to 6 month will save on release overhead and that time can be used for strengthening automation. - Joe agrees partly in release overhead being significant for major release If I missed out any important point please feel free to bring into the thread. There were some other discussion in [1] on release planning conference and chip's clarification on time based v/s feature based releases but we will not discuss those in this thread. Community has agreed to time-based release already. [1] http://markmail.org/thread/6suq2fhltdvgvcxd
