Next Release Planning

[Livnat Peer]

On 21/08/12 15:31, Mike Burns wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 00:30 +0300, Itamar Heim wrote:
>> On 08/21/2012 12:20 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 08/20/2012 11:14 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
>>>> On 08/20/2012 05:43 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
>>>>>> Please think about release criteria and whether or not we want to
>>>>>> add/remove/change things for this release.  This needs to be determined
>>>>>> now to make sure that the release process runs smoother down the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond the release criteria, there's the main goal of the release - what
>>>>> is the major problem oVirt users have that we can fix for the next
>>>>> release, for example?
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> my view - that would be great, but such goals should be suggested by
>>>> someone also committing to delivering them per the planned schedule.
>>>
>>> I agree - it's one of the things which I've found tricky to understand
>>> re the release manager role - the project maintainer is the one who
>>> should, I think, be setting the scope of the release, and the release
>>> manager is merely ensuring that everyone is aware of where we are within
>>> that scope.
>>>
>>> Since 3.1 is my first oVirt release, perhaps someone could explain how
>>> the scope of the 3.1 release was decided after the 3.0 release, and how
>>> we fared against that original plan during the release cycle?
>>
>> we didn't define a scope for 3.1. people suggested features during the 
>> version and we did some fine tuning in the end on timing since some 
>> seemed worth the extra time to close/stabilize them.
>>
>> in general, I think we should define the schedule for 3.2, then see 
>> which features people would suggest to try and make the timeframe.
>>
>> in general, I think it should be a 3-month version (we said we wanted to 
>> move to 6 months cycle after the first few versions. I think we should 
>> stay on 3 months especially since 3.1 took longer to get the final 
>> blockers out and until released).
>>
> 
> I think I agree on the shorter time-table for 3.2.  I also think we
> should get a list of features and commit to it and track against it on
> the weekly call.  The 3-month schedule would put us in mid-November to
> early-December which I think is reasonable.  
> 
> Mike
> 

I agree we should keep the short cycles, so many things changed and so
many fixes were pushed, I see no reason to hold the next release for
longer than 3 month + some blockers delay.

I am not sure we must have new features in each release, a release of
bug fixes seems also reasonable to me. Why not keep it only time-based
release regardless of commitments for new features for the release.

We can ask what new features are planned/expected to be pushed in the
near future, if we get reply with a lot of features then we can call it
major version (4.0) if we get only minor features we can use a minor
version (3.2, 3.3, etc).

Livnat

> 
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dave.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>