+1 what Paul said. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, 22 April, 2015 19:13:04 > Subject: RE: Next ACS release? > I fully support the idea of a stable master with an automated CD process to > protect against regressions. > > ....However, we obviously don't currently have fantastic integration testing > otherwise we wouldn't have relied on 'people' to pick up the release blockers > recently. A 2 week release cycle IMHO is way too frequent to expect 'people' > to be carrying out integration testing. > > Maybe 1 month is a workable compromise until the integration testing is of a > coverage and standard that can give real confidence. > > > > I'm also going to compile a list of people who vote "+1 - it works on my > laptop" > and devise a Guinness related punishment for any of them that show up at the > CloudStack day in Dublin. > > Regards > > Paul Angus > Cloud Architect > S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: CloudyAngus > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:r...@remi.nl] > Sent: 22 April 2015 10:25 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Next ACS release? > > I'd be happy to help here as well. Last week in Austin, we also discussed this > topic a couple of times. I do agree shorter release cycles are better. > > In my opinion, the first thing to improve is the minor releases in both the > 4.4 and 4.5 branches. If we speed those up to let's say once every 2-weeks we > will be able to do the next minor release with less effort and users can > choose > to either wait to start using 4.5 or start now and upgrade when the next minor > release is available. This would have helped in getting 4.5 out on time and > quickly fixing issues after the initial release. Also, it will save time which > we can invest in getting the next release out on time, etc. > > The common thing here is we need more automated testing, preferably functional > testing in addition to unit testing. There might also be other steps that we > do > manually now that can be automated. I'll try to understand the current process > first and then come up with a proposal to improve which we can discuss. > > Regards, > Remi > > 2015-04-22 10:56 GMT+02:00 Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com>: > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland >> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Turner < >> > stephen.tur...@citrix.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> I have to admit I'm a bit sceptical because when we did have a >> > four-month >> > >> release cycle, we never seemed to manage to meet it. Personally I >> think >> > >> six-monthly might be easier. >> > >> >> > >> Having said that, part of the problem was the long close-down >> > >> period >> > where >> > >> we kept finding critical bugs, so more automated testing might >> > >> help to shorten the cycle. >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > - Shorter cycle means that it's less of a problem to miss a >> > > deadline, meaning you can spend more time on QA. >> > > - Longer cycle means that it could be critical to meet the >> > > deadline, meaning you might end up doing less QA while stressing >> > > to get your >> > feature >> > > in. >> > > >> > > My $.002 >> > >> > >> Yes, Eric and the amount of qa needed is less as well. Bare with me >> > for a little rant here. >> > >> > When less new features are introduced less new interdependencies are >> > introduced. I could try and expand on this but people make phd on >> > the subject so that would be presumptuous of me. >> > >> > un-educated guess is (m + n)! - m! >> > where m is old features and n is new features >> > >> > example: >> > 1 old feature + 1 new feature mean 1 check to see if they (still) >> > work >> > 1 old feature + 2 new features means 3 checks to see if they all >> > work >> > 2 + 2 = 6 of which only 1 is old and should be fine >> > 2 + 3 = 10, see the n! progressing ;) >> > >> > >> > this is an over simplification as the complexity of features comes >> > in play as well. I make them out for being function points here. >> > those are fables of course. >> > >> > thanks for baring that. >> > >> > >> I'm all with you on this Daan. >> Just for the record, my notion of QA was meant at the feature >> developer, ie. that they could use more time on test coverage etc. >> without having to worry that much about feature freeze dates. >> >> -- >> Erik >> > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> > CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> > CloudStack Software > Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > CloudStack Infrastructure > Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> > CloudStack Bootcamp Training > Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended > solely > for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions > expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent > those > of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient > of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor > copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have > received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in > England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in > India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil > Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under > license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by > The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. > ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
