I think we should set that as a goal for 4.5. We should treat 4.4 as business as usual at this point and give "fair warning" for the next release.
We should formally define what "tested" means for 4.5 and then take the appropriate course of action from a RC point of view. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>wrote: > That's how i like to see it and why I asked. Is there a reason people > merge and then commit their features instead of rebasing and running a > standard set of integration tests to validate before merging. I am not > better then average on this myself but I think here is where we have > room to improve if anywhere. > > So do we create 4.4 RC1 next Monday? > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Mike Tutkowski > <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > I think many people (myself included) are used to performing rigorous, > but > > focused feature-specific testing before feature freeze, but are under the > > impression that once feature freeze arrives that we are in > > integration-testing mode (where our feature is tested in combination with > > other features...not so isolated anymore). At this point, we tend to find > > bugs that were not hit pre feature freeze because that mode of testing > was > > more confined. > > > > Perhaps we simply need to decide on how tested a feature should be for > > feature freeze. Does it need to be fully tested from an integration with > > other features standpoint or not? If yes, then we are basically "done" > with > > the release at feature freeze time and can begin the release-candidate > > process. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > > >> Thats a very good point - we are effectively saying we know the > >> features we merged in have potentially months worth of bugs. Though > >> really, our hiccups don't seem to generally be in new features, it's > >> old features. > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Its a good point. I had thought about. Essentially we are saying that > we > >> > know the features we just merged need another few months of work. > >> > On Mar 13, 2014 1:01 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Just a thought, > >> >> > >> >> Why isn't the freshly cut branch the first RC from the get go? It is > >> >> quite sure not to pass but it should cantain what we ant to ship > >> >> feature wise. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Mike Tutkowski > >> >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >> >> > 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)* > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Daan > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > *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)* > > > > -- > Daan > -- *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)*
