On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 08:46:43PM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > Hi folks, > > One of the things I've been pondering of late is a set of release > criteria. E.g. here is what CloudStack MUST do to be considered for > release. > > So as background there is a somewhat complex social contract that I > think we informally enter with our users. People expect us to release > when we project - and we (IMO) damage the credibility of the project > by suggesting a date and then missing, sometimes by a wide margin. In > reading some of the documentation that other folks have around > Time-based releases, I really like one of the analogies that Ubuntu > uses [1] which is that of a play in a theatre. Things may not be > perfect, people may not absolutely know all of their lines, but > tickets have been sold, the audience is standing outside waiting to > come in, and it's a pretty drastic event for the show not to go on.
Hollywood has trailers and if the trailer sucks, I don't go to the movie :) I think we messed up with the users again this time. Partly a fault that we can't get beta-quality builds for users to test. Seeing everyone run 4.2 packages after release announcement and reporting critical bugs I wish could've happened soon after freeze and during the test schedule. To get beta quality builds we need to absolutely treat the master branch as 'stable'. Never hurt it, automate against it, branch off quality builds from it and create packages and mirror them. That'll save us a ton of effort. > > At the same time, bringing multiple RCs forward which get voted down > doesn't necessarily inspire confidence. Some of this is caused by our > lack of comprehensive testing. I think many people have an innate > sense of what they think CloudStack should deliver in a product > release; but we also have a number of people who suggest that they are > timid in signing off on a product release simply because of the scope. > I think we should actively be setting the expectations of consumers of > our product. Particularly in the short term when we don't have > completely comprehensive testing, having a standard that we can test > to that is our 'minimum acceptable' makes sense in my mind. > > I am going to spend a few days drafting a set of criteria, and I'll > post it to the wiki, and ask for feedback and help in refining it, > just wanted to give a heads up on what I am thinking, and hopefully > get some consensus around it being a worthwhile thing. > > --David > > > > > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimeBasedReleases -- Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
