Before we have most of tests automated, 4 months release cycle seems too tight to me
> -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:08 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:20 PM > > To: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: [DISCUSS] ACS Release 4 month v/s 6 month > > > > Folks > > > > We started discussing 4 month v/s 6 month release cycle in a another > > thread [1]. Since the subject of that thread was different, community > > may not have participated in this important discussion fully. I am > > are bringing this discussion to its own thread. Here is the summary so > > far please refer to [1] for more details. > > > > Summary of discussion: > > - Animesh pointed out the technical debt that we have accumulated so > > far needs extra time to resolve > > - David, Chip favor shorter release cycle of 4 month and keeping > > master always stable and in good quality and enhancing automation as a > > solution to reduce QA manual effort. A focused defect fixing activity > > may be needed to reduce technical debt > > - Will brought up several points in the discussion: He called out > > heavy dependence on manual QA for a release and pointed out that > > manual QA may not be always available to match up ACS release > > schedule. Release overhead for 4 month release is still high and > > suggest that moving to 6 month will save on release overhead and that > time can be used for strengthening automation. > > - Joe agrees partly in release overhead being significant for major > > release > > > > If I missed out any important point please feel free to bring into the > > thread. > > > > There were some other discussion in [1] on release planning conference > > and chip's clarification on time based v/s feature based releases but > > we will not discuss those in this thread. Community has agreed to > > time-based release already. > > > > [1] http://markmail.org/thread/6suq2fhltdvgvcxd > > [Animesh>] Please provide your input.
