I agree, there need's to be a caveat the nightly builds are convenience builds, that shouldnt be used for any type of production environment. Only for testing.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>wrote: > I like this idea, as long as it is approached carefully. I would prefer > that the beta releases be of failed RC quality than pre-RC phase. I know > these should be at their own risk, take backups, etc, but upgrades are > notorious for schema upgrade failures. Also, helping people update from > beta 1 to RC2 and all of the possible permutations seems like a nightmare > if the database schema/ updates aren't rock solid before the first beta is > cut. > On May 18, 2013 4:56 PM, "Ahmad Emneina" <aemne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I like the idea of nightly builds. Hopefully it could be tied into > Jenkins > > and have passed some sort of quality check. That way only known 'good' > > builds are exposed. > > > > Ahmad > > > > On May 17, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > We need to be careful about how we approach this. A "release" is > > something that is voted on. A "release candidate" is something that is > > about to be voted on. If you you don't vote on something, it's not a > > release. And if you've voted on something, it's no longer a candidate. :) > > > > > > Two things we could do: > > > > > > * Vote on, and officially release, beta/alpha versions. (This comes > > with the overhead of the release procedure, and community fatigue of the > > voting/testing cycle.) > > > > > > * Set up easy-to-access nightlies. Link to them from a place on the > dev > > section of the site, and make sure that people who we send there release > > that these are _not_ releases. > > > > > > > > > On 17 May 2013 07:56, Nitin Mehta <nitin.me...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> +1. > > >> Need the beta especially because folks would want to test early and > > >> crossing the last mile can take a bit of time. > > >> But hopefully its not too much of an overhead. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> -Nitin > > >> > > >> On 16/05/13 7:27 AM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> >+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/ > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > NS > > >
