[openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles
jsbryant at electronicjungle.net
Sun Dec 17 20:28:50 UTC 2017
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 4:20 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Tim Bell <tim.bell at cern.ch> wrote:
> >> There is a risk that deployment to production is delayed, and therefore
> feedback is delayed and the wait for the ‘initial bug fixes before we
> deploy to prod’ gets longer.
> > There is always a rush at the Feature Freeze point in a cycle to get
> things in, or they will be delayed for 6 months. With the year-long cycle,
> now anything missing Feature Freeze will be delayed by a year. The long
> cycle also means that a lot more time will be spent backporting things to
> the current release, since people won’t be able to wait a whole year for
> some improvements.
> > Maybe it’s just the dev in me, but I prefer shorter cycles (CD, anyone?).
> Yes, I'll admit I'm struggling with that part of the proposal too. We
> could use intermediary releases but there would always be a "more
> important" release.
> Is the "rush" at the end of the cycle still a thing those days ? From a
> release management perspective it felt like the pressure was reduced in
> recent cycles, with less and less FFEs. But that may be that PTLs have
> gotten better at denying them, not that the pressure is reduced now that
> we are past the hype peak...
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
I feel like the rush at the end of a cycle had gotten better to some
extent. The features going into Cinder, however habe slowed and we have had
more ling running development.
I am afraid the rush might come back oud we have longer development cycles.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev