OK, so it sounds like a 3-month dev cycle for a four-month release was on purpose.
Just curious...thanks :) On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:31 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > 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)* > -- *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)*
