Same feelings here. -min
On 4/22/13 4:18 PM, "Frank Zhang" <frank.zh...@citrix.com> wrote: >Before we have most of tests automated, 4 months release cycle seems too >tight to me > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:08 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month >> >> >> >> > -----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.
