I think we need to have a faster release management to speed up process in general, and for that I propose that we have at least two co-pilots for the release manager who would support them with things like reviewing/merging patches, creating RC candidates etc whenever necessary. Having only one person as a release manager can become a bottleneck for a speedy release.
The other issue is getting people to test a (release) branch, fix bugs and expect a review/result in 72 hours. This has usually failed if people are busy and not getting enough time for this. As an example, I think 4.5 is delayed because it lacked people actively testing it or fixing issues, or when issues were found only around the RC testing period which delayed RC voting by 1-2 weeks every time that happened. (I’ll post details about where I think we are wrt 4.5 in another thread). > On 17-Apr-2015, at 12:49 am, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com> wrote: > > Today during the CloudStackdays we did a round table about Release > management targeting the next 4.6 releases. > > > Quick bullet point discussions: > > ideas to change release planning > > - Plugin contribution is complicated because often a new plugin involve > change on the core: > - ex: storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code > - There is an idea of going on a 2 weeks release model which could > introduce issue the database schema. > - Database schema version should be different then the application > version. > - There is a will to enforce git workflow in 4.6 and trigger simulator > job on PullRequest. > - Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of > supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release (4.3.x, 4.4.x, > 4.5.x). But the current level of confidence against latest release is low, > so that need to be improved. > > > So, the main messages is that w'd like to improve the release velocity, and > release branch stability. so we would like to propose few change in the > way we would add code to the 4.6 branch as follow: > > - All new contribution to 4.6 would be thru Pull Request or merge request, > which would trigger a simulator job, ideally only if that pass the PR would > be accepted and automatically merged. At this time, I think we pretty much > have everything in place to do that. At a first step we would use > simulator+marvin jobs then improve tests coverage from there. > > Please comments :-) Regards, Rohit Yadav Software Architect, ShapeBlue M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab 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.
