On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:55:50AM -0700, Will Chan wrote:
> Again, I am not disputing that more features will make it in given Dave's 
> argument.  In fact, I'm not really that keen on using the fixed cost of 
> release mgmt. for the reason of the move as well.   Heck, I'm not even sure a 
> 6 month cycle would fix any of the issues that have already been outlined but 
> it'd be nice to try.  However, I do know a couple of things:
> 
> 1. We all want CS releases to be of certain quality.  It needs to work and 
> upgrades need to work.

+1 - Absolutely

> 2. ACS still relies too heavily on manual testing and most of it 
> unfortunately comes from 1 company.  We cannot be dependent on another 
> company's schedule to ensure ACS has gone through enough proper testing to 
> achieve (1). 

Also agreed, but this only relates to release schedule for regression
and upgrade testing really.  Feature testing is something that should /
can be handled prior to a merge in my mind.

> 3. Most importantly, the extra 2 months will give QA more time, give features 
> more time to settle in, and more automated tests to be written for existing 
> features as well.  I agree with Dave that more feature will come in.  So 
> what?  If they are not of good enough quality, we don't release it as part of 
> the ACS release.  However, that extra 2 month will give earlier written 
> features more time to be potentially tested and used by people so that we fix 
> the most egregious bugs before we ship it.  It will also better accommodate 
> people's schedule so they can fix bugs for their features.  
> 

How do you see the release schedule laying out with multiple releases
over the course of time?  What overlaps exist?

We *really should not* plan on blocking new features from coming into
master as they are completed.  That's just an inhibitor to progress.
Given that assumption, I fail to see how the we would be doing anything
*but* increasing the overall change size by increasing the time between
feature releases.  That leads to increased "cost of release".

> Personally, so far, I feel 4 months seems a bit rushed.
> 
> Will

Reply via email to