-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/22/2015 10:08 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > I strongly advice my fellow community members to go for a lower > duration, not longer. Each feature deserves a release and I'd say > let's release every 2 months, provides a new feature was added. > Also we now release fix releases when we feel the urgency. This > means users, that are not also developers have little influence. > Let's release every two weeks, provided fixes where applicable. > > €0,02++ wanting to get out of this vicious circle is my drive > Oh, I would really love that to happen. No doubt about it :-) > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Turner > <stephen.tur...@citrix.com> wrote: >> I have to admit I'm a bit sceptical because when we did have a >> four-month release cycle, we never seemed to manage to meet it. >> Personally I think six-monthly might be easier. >> >> Having said that, part of the problem was the long close-down >> period where we kept finding critical bugs, so more automated >> testing might help to shorten the cycle. >> >> -- Stephen Turner >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Andrei Mikhailovsky >> [mailto:and...@arhont.com] Sent: 21 April 2015 11:39 PM To: >> dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Next ACS release? >> >> Ilya, Mark, thanks for your feedback, >> >> I also see the need to restructure the release schedule for ACS >> as the current release cycles are not really working. There is no >> _reliable_ release cycle of the product and as we have recently >> seen with the 4.5 branch, the release did not happen for months >> and it is still not clear when this will take place. In my (I >> must admit somewhat limited) experience if there are no >> deadlines, developers are not keen on releases and the release >> are likely to be delayed. This is what we've seen with the past >> ACS releases, they are overdue by many months. >> >> The community might get a much better responce if there is a much >> shorter release cycle even if it means pushing out less features >> with each release. At least some features will get completed, >> tested and implemented in a set time frame. I would rather see a >> release cycle of every 3-4 months with 5 new features than a >> release with 15 new features which may or may not get released >> every 9 - 12 months. >> >> By any means, please comment if someone disagrees or thinks there >> is a better alternative. >> >> Andrei ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: "ilya" <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> To: >>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, 21 April, 2015 7:30:34 >>> PM Subject: Re: Next ACS release? >> >>> Andrei, >> >>> To best of my knowledge, both 4.4.x and 4.5.x are being worked >>> on actively. As a community, we need to get better on QA of >>> each release - this is something we are planning to cover this >>> year with distributed QA model, this was not widely discussed >>> yet but something we need to tackle. >> >>> 4.5 rc2 got stalled and we need to restart. We had a 4 month >>> release cycle, but we can really stick to it hard - as its >>> community driven. May will have to revise it down to 6 months >>> or so. >> >>> Regards ilya >> >>> On 4/21/15 1:26 AM, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: >>>> Hello guys, >>>> >>>> Looking at the dev and user lists it is becoming less certain >>>> if version 4.5.x is ever coming out. It seems like a few >>>> months have passed since the not so fortunate release of >>>> 4.5.0 and I can't find a release schedule for the 4.5.1, >>>> which seems to have stopped at rc2 stage and haven't >>>> progressed further to a release stage. >>>> >>>> Are we likely to see any progress with the 4.5.x branch or is >>>> the community switching towards the 4.6.x branch without >>>> releasing the 4.5.x? >>>> >>>> I am a bit unclear as there are no release dates, schedules >>>> or dead lines that the community should work with. Possibly >>>> as a result of this, the ACS releases are not being released >>>> on time or fast enough. >>>> >>>> Does it make sense to introduce release schedules for ACS >>>> that the dev community should stick to? Similar to what is >>>> being done in many other projects, like Ubuntu, etc. Or would >>>> this break the ACS project releases even more? >>>> >>>> Andrei >>>> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVN1lgAAoJEAGbWC3bPspCaCYP/iKp9N1XEne9pEzlDm/cTRMm wM0qNKiKNepXQocfxm2l35BSsdbnQZHwbXhs/IhcvOGsOfoYq+HvLDsuQWm/ut4F RQdz38A5fHTX9wuQHeO11OQN12FE2PR61EUL1+NBt86Z9z/qjuXYuc6I3zQfj4Cn fS+3EF62gsrudDvQA1JLbjQe/v3YlHYoYavn2miOSJMpnDnVnil1M5ZDASGFAoY+ nWFODk4P/8PbYAQmLOCS+TUxF3WcOEYV5sDgYdJS2cMTTtzoTCbI70scXViuzwOE JikMF8v5rOXpVLbu9wsIzpbpbiXB+h+Gx4jzWTpV+BMpmbbw40Q/X/Wm92Gqkw6N lnrWqDo5DipTEfNnDlzwEUS9axJPQvgkwF2QJndPgJNg3r7b9alzddJh48LoO47w 1wMyf3OrxzFSa0R1WdrDJTdc8kf2wh8VJRR1/EEkLi+rIiZ8qlI32Dljh2JDipxJ QavTNDAAXUOK4L5TLclVN/s9pTllJee/gQvOookafmwmDq6LZNqq5uVebV9IN7oZ va5ZYrXqybLhPtaYwquzjYVj+Zyp2eeoNb+bauCvAcnosjKHkr7GncKe3UVTUagJ VM+0zYHxgbPz7E7p1DSEfppTCg6xYGegm+Z/5iayQ/Vp9VLjKoXVAX3KUhxhHhEE C6YfvgYhP+gqjuzWAuVc =rpDu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
