On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:02:05PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > Let me attempt to summarize this thread, if I missed any glaring points feel > free to bring them up > > 4 months: > Proponents (9): Chip, Alex, David, Noah, Hugo, Joe, Sebastian, Prasanna, > Rohit > Reasoning: > * We have not given proper shot to 4 month cycle, this was just the first > time. Level of automation has increased between 4.0 to 4.1 which lays > groundwork for better automation > * Longer feature cycle will mean more features and bigger and more > complex release > * Faster feedback loop to respond and address problems and shorter wait > time for feature delivery > > > 6 months: > Proponents (12): Will, Animesh, Edison, Frank, Min, Ilya, Kelven, Edison, > Sudha, Radhika, Nitin, Mice > Reasoning: > * ACS currently has heavy reliance on manual testing and majority of QA > comes from 1 company. Shorter release cycle puts more dependence on timely > availability of QA to keep up to quality goals > * ACS release is expected to be of good quality and support upgrades. > Longer QA cycle will mean more soak time and better quality. > * Less overhead on release fixed cost work (release notes, generating > release artifacts) > * Longer cycles also provides more flexibility in schedule for > individuals in defect fixing > > > I still see there is difference of opinion and not a clear consensus with 12 > out of 21 ( approx. 60%) preferring 6 months. But going by the argument of > not having given proper shot to 4 month cycle I will say we can keep 4.2 as a > 4 month cycle and pull in all effort to make it successful. If it turns out > that we can work with 4 month schedule that's well and good otherwise we can > bring this topic again based on the results of running 4 month cycle. > > If there is no objection I will proceed with creating 4.2 release page, > dashboards etc. on Monday > > Thanks > Animesh
Well summarized, and the right way forward when there is no consensus to change is to "stay the course". I'm quite happy that this didn't degenerate into a "holy war" [1] of sorts actually. Well debated folks. Yes, let's revisit after 4.2, and even possibly again after that. -chip [1] http://producingoss.com/en/common-pitfalls.html#holy-wars
