> -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:20 PM > To: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month > > 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
[Animesh>] Please provide your input.
