+1, perhaps I'm late to this thread, but this makes lot of sense.
-------- Original message -------- From: Pranav Saxena <pranav.sax...@citrix.com> Date: To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org,aemne...@gmail.com Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should we be releasing -beta releases? +1 to what Ahmad says here . Perfect reasoning . There have been many users on the list asking for some capability /feature present in CloudStack when it's actually under development in the current release. Beta release would allow them to get a feel of it . Definitely , it would help to further refine any new feature further when actually tested in a production environment . -----Original Message----- From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:07 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should we be releasing -beta releases? +1 I feel this allows for users who are chomping at the bit to get a hold of feature X. Tinker with feature X, expose bugs or use case issues well before an official release. Saves on the disappointment as well. ;) On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:59:14AM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > > Are you going to support upgrades from your Betas to release (and > > betaN to betaN+1)? > > If the answer is no, then there is no interest on my part. It's not > > better than us producing nightly builds, or highlighting jenkins > > builds. > > Perhaps doing a better job of highlighting nightly builds at key > moments is the right answer to the problem I was trying to solve (more > user testing of upgrades)? > > The beta idea comes with some overhead, and perhaps that overhead > isn't worth the benefit (if there are other ways to achieve that > goal). And that's why I floated the idea... to get reactions. > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Chip Childers > > <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > >> As a relative outsider; > > >> > > >> any branch that is not released yet is a beta release. Why make > > >> it > more > > >> explicit. Wouldn't this add support burdon? Make a branch 'in beta' > and > > >> appoint a guard to make sure no new feartures but only fixes go > > >> in > (kind of > > >> how you are working right now) > > > > > > So we do that today. However, a "release" as a -beta will get > > > more > user > > > attention eariler in our release cycle (at least that's my > > > theory). We need that user attention to help us ensure that upgrades > > > work. > > > > > >> > > >> Daan > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 14, 2013, at 09:41 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > > >> > > As a way to get more user feedback on our major feature > > >> > > releases, > what > > >> > > does everyone think about releasing one or two -beta releases > > >> > > for > each > > >> > > major feature release? > > >> > > > >> > Yes to beta releases. I know that users could test at any time, > > >> > but > we > > >> > need explicit targets for users that say "now is a good time to > > >> > test this and give feedback." > > >> > > > >> > +1 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > > > >> > jzb > > >> > -- > > >> > Joe Brockmeier > > >> > j...@zonker.net > > >> > Twitter: @jzb > > >> > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > > >> > > > >
