This was (IIRC) part of the explicit decision in how to do things. The thought being that if you are restricting what people can do with a release branch, people still need to be able to have a place to base their ongoing work; and master should be that place. Some features will take more than a cycle to get integrated.
--David On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Yeah, if you "abandon" the "old" release as soon as a release branch is cut > for it, then you essentially have three months on the new release before > its release branch is cut and you move on to the newer release. I'm not > sure that was the intent when such a schedule was created. It means we're > releasing every four months, but developing for only three. > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The overlap is simply a byproduct of cutting the branch, I'm not sure >> there's a way around it. It's a good point though, that essentially >> the window is 1 month shorter than I think was intended. Better >> testing will help that, however, with the point being that we >> shouldn't be doing a ton of work to make the release branch stable. It >> should push the majority of the work back into the pre-branch stage. >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Mike Tutkowski >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> > I wanted to add a little comment/question in general about our release >> > process: >> > >> > Right now we typically have a one-month overlap between releases. That >> > being the case, if you are focusing on the current release until it is >> out >> > the door, you effectively lose a month of development for the future >> > release. It might be tempting during this one-month time period to focus >> > instead on the future release and leave the current release alone. >> > >> > Would it make sense to keep a four-month release cycle, but not have an >> > overlapping month of two releases? >> > >> > Just a thought >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> > >> >> The RC7 vote thread contained a lot of discussion around release >> >> cadence, and I figured I'd move that to a thread that has a better >> >> subject so there is better visibility to list participants who don't >> >> read every thread. >> >> >> >> When I look at things schedule wise, I see our aims and our reality. >> >> We have a relatively short development window (in the schedule) and we >> >> have almost 50% of our time in the schedule allocated to testing. >> >> (over two months). However, it seems that a lot of testing - or at >> >> least a lot of testing for what became blockers to the release didn't >> >> appear to happen until RCs were kicked out - and that's where our >> >> schedule has fallen apart for multiple releases. The automated tests >> >> we have were clean when we issued RCs, so we clearly don't have the >> >> depth needed from an automated standpoint. >> >> >> >> Two problems, one cultural and one technical. The technical problem is >> >> that our automated test suite isn't deep enough to give us a high >> >> level of confidence that we should release. The cultural problem is >> >> that many of us wait until the release period of the schedule to test. >> >> >> >> What does that have to do with release cadence? Well inherently not >> >> much; but let me describe my concerns. As a project; the schedule is >> >> meaningless if we don't follow it; and effectively the release date is >> >> held hostage. Personally, I do want as few bugs as possible, but it's >> >> a balancing act where people doubt our ability if we aren't able to >> >> ship. I don't think it matters if we move to 6 month cycles, if this >> >> behavior continues, we'd miss the 6 month date as well and push to 8 >> >> or 9 months. See my radical proposition at the bottom for an idea on >> >> dealing with this. >> >> >> >> I also find myself agreeing with Daan on the additional complexity. >> >> Increasing the window for release inherently increases the window for >> >> feature development. As soon as we branch a release, master is open >> >> for feature development again. This means a potential for greater >> >> change at each release. Change is a risk to quality; or at least an >> >> unknown that we again have to test. The greater that quantity of >> >> change, the greater the potential threat to quality. >> >> >> >> Radical proposition: >> >> >> >> Because we have two problems, of different nature, we are in a >> >> difficult situation. This is a possible solution, and I'd appreciate >> >> you reading and considering it. Feedback is welcome. I propose that >> >> after we enter the RC stage that we not entertain any bugs as blockers >> >> that don't have automated test cases associated with them. This means >> >> that you are still welcome to do manual testing of your pet feature >> >> and the things that are important to you; during the testing window >> >> (or anytime really). However, if the automation suite isn't also >> >> failing then we consider the release as high enough quality to ship. >> >> This isn't something we can codify, but the PMC can certainly adopt >> >> this attitude as a group when voting. Which also means that we can >> >> deviate from it. If you brought up a blocker for release - we should >> >> be immediately looking at how we can write a test for that behavior. >> >> This should also mean several other behaviors need to become a valid >> >> part of our process. We need to ensure that things are well tested >> >> before allowing a merge. This means we need a known state of master, >> >> and we need to perform testing that allows us to confirm that a patch >> >> does no harm. We also need to insist on implementation of >> >> comprehensive tests for every inbound feature. >> >> >> >> Thoughts, comments, flames, death threats? :) >> >> >> >> --David >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *Mike Tutkowski* >> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >> > o: 303.746.7302 >> > Advancing the way the world uses the >> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >> > *(tm)* >> > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > *(tm)*
