+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/ >> > >> > >> > >>
