Thanks for the great summary Animesh. Agree with Chip. Great thread. :)
On 26 April 2013 01:11, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:02:05PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > Let me attempt to summarize this thread, if I missed any glaring points > feel free to bring them up > > > > 4 months: > > Proponents (9): Chip, Alex, David, Noah, Hugo, Joe, Sebastian, > Prasanna, Rohit > > Reasoning: > > * We have not given proper shot to 4 month cycle, this was just the > first time. Level of automation has increased between 4.0 to 4.1 which lays > groundwork for better automation > > * Longer feature cycle will mean more features and bigger and more > complex release > > * Faster feedback loop to respond and address problems and shorter > wait time for feature delivery > > > > > > 6 months: > > Proponents (12): Will, Animesh, Edison, Frank, Min, Ilya, Kelven, > Edison, Sudha, Radhika, Nitin, Mice > > Reasoning: > > * ACS currently has heavy reliance on manual testing and majority > of QA comes from 1 company. Shorter release cycle puts more dependence on > timely availability of QA to keep up to quality goals > > * ACS release is expected to be of good quality and support > upgrades. Longer QA cycle will mean more soak time and better quality. > > * Less overhead on release fixed cost work (release notes, > generating release artifacts) > > * Longer cycles also provides more flexibility in schedule for > individuals in defect fixing > > > > > > I still see there is difference of opinion and not a clear consensus > with 12 out of 21 ( approx. 60%) preferring 6 months. But going by the > argument of not having given proper shot to 4 month cycle I will say we can > keep 4.2 as a 4 month cycle and pull in all effort to make it successful. > If it turns out that we can work with 4 month schedule that's well and > good otherwise we can bring this topic again based on the results of > running 4 month cycle. > > > > If there is no objection I will proceed with creating 4.2 release page, > dashboards etc. on Monday > > > > Thanks > > Animesh > > Well summarized, and the right way forward when there is no consensus to > change is to "stay the course". I'm quite happy that this didn't > degenerate into a "holy war" [1] of sorts actually. Well debated folks. > > Yes, let's revisit after 4.2, and even possibly again after that. > > -chip > > [1] http://producingoss.com/en/common-pitfalls.html#holy-wars > -- NS
