Given the remaining work to reshape CloudStack into a better architecture to response other "Stacks" (i.e., OpenStack) at architecture level in addition to feature development. I prefer a 6 month release cycle.
Kelven On 4/22/13 4:47 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: >Animesh > >I personally believe 4 months cycle is too rapid and we need more time to >Qa and fix all issues. > >I'm finding issues constantly that automated tests missed. > >My opinion, we should release a stable product when it's ready, >hopefully following a 6 months cycle. > >Regards >Ilya > > > >-------- Original message -------- >From: Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >Date: >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 > >
