David, thanks for the summary. Let’s remind ourselves, that in OPNFV we’re really trying to meet the needs of two different audiences: (1) User/consumer of a readily integrated NFV stack – as well as marketing operations (2) Developer/tester of an NFV stack. Audience #1 is mostly interested in stability, even if that means that things are released a little later (i.e. you build on long released components). Audience #2 is pushing the envelope and requires the ability to evolve/develop and integrate the latest set of components; once working they desire to release things to allow others to build on top; and move on/start over.
The current 1.0/2.0/3.0 was an effort to meet the needs of both audiences, i.e. · Have a “major” release. · Allow developers to release scenarios when they are ready and evolve, without too much of a maintenance burden. This is also why we typically did not fix component versions for a release, but said: Based or ODL Boron or later. I agree that releases are not free – especially the “major” release, because it comes with significant documentation and coordination needs. That said, it is mostly the “major” release with a lot of central coordination which creates efforts. Labeling and pushing an updated version of test results and documentation is relatively low effort – and can even be done by a scenario team. It does not even require central coordination. And our pipeline is now mature enough to do these things with low/moderate overhead. So rather than move back in history and go back to a single release every 6 months, which will make OPNFV a very inflexible organization for developers, I would strongly suggest that we rather consider evolving the current release process. IMHO we should be ready to have monthly micro-releases (scenario owners publish those scenarios which are “ready”, i.e. have docs ready and pass testing), and every 6 months we do a macro-release (with marketing/press announcement) which includes the set of scenarios which are “ready” by then. Macro-releases can be coupled to certain upstream component versions (as selection criteria for what is in/out of a macro release) – whereas micro-release would enjoy complete freedom. Thoughts? Thanks, Frank From: David McBride [mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017 20:26 To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <firstname.lastname@example.org>; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com>; Tapio Tallgren <tapio.tallg...@nokia.com> Subject: [release] E-release schedule Greetings, During the TSC call, yesterday, I took an action to start an email discussion about the schedule for the E-release<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/E-River>. Specifically, I suggested that we just plan for a single release, rather than three releases, as we've done in the past. Then, when the release date approaches, we evaluate whether we need a point release, then schedule it at that time. Why? * Scheduling three releases has created a lot of confusion with the project teams The purpose of the three releases is to give project teams time to debug and fix scenarios that are not ready for 1.0. They are not separate development timelines with separate release milestones. However, many believe that it isn't necessary to meet release milestones, because they will simply shift to the 2.0 or 3.0 release. * In the past two releases, the new content released in 2.0 has been minimal. For example, for Colorado 2.0, just two new scenarios were released. Human nature is such that, given the opportunity for a later deadline, many will take it. * Releases are not free. In addition to the overhead required for labeling, creating ISOs, and updating documentation, projects that released in previous releases, are required to update their code for subsequent releases to resolve any issues, even if they weren't intending to do any additional work on that major release. For example, let's say that a project releases in Danube 1.0, they're satisfied with their effort, so they shift their focus to the E-release. However, changes after 1.0 break their scenario. So, suddenly, they find themselves working on Danube 2.0, even though they aren't releasing any new scenarios. This process repeats for Danube 3.0. During the TSC call, it was suggested that a 2.0 or 3.0 release provides an opportunity to integrate a late release of a major upstream component (e.g. ODL). However, this is counter to our previous agreement not to change major upstream components after the 1.0 release. Unfortunately, this happened in Colorado and created significant disruption, including a slip in the 2.0 release. Per our discussion on Tuesday, I've created a wiki page<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/E-Release+Schedule+discussion> to capture pros and cons of various schedule options. Feel free to edit it and add your thoughts. David -- David McBride Release Manager, OPNFV Mobile: +1.805.276.8018<tel:%2B1.805.276.8018> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> Skype: davidjmcbride1 IRC: dmcbride
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list email@example.com https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss