| Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 6 month release cycle |
In the end game, the exact cadence of aggregation is inconsequential. We could even start quarterly and ramp up to monthly, since a lot of the work is still done manually. Once sufficient automation is achieved, aggregation can happen continuously. I would not be concerned with the overall quality dropping as the result of frequent aggregation. Many of the projects are already accustomed to building and testing with multiple versions of their dependencies, so unless projects fail to track the release plans of their dependencies, there shouldn’t be too many issues. I actually expect the perceived quality to rise, because a bug fix that slipped through can be fixed and delivered much quicker than with the current approach. - Konstantin From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Bull Thanks a good question Mike. Obviously monthly was what Konstantin originally suggested. I think it's good in that it's forcing us to re-think some of our assumptions. In the end, if we choose 6 weeks, or 8 times per year -- with careful consideration to Holidays, etc.. -- that's fine. But if the use of the term monthly is helping us break some of our mental road-blocks, than that's a good thing(tm). Cheers, Ian On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Just out of curiousity, is there a reason why people keep mentioning monthly, when there is a long-established 6-week cadence? Maybe we can address these issues by having a few of these monthly builds get promoted as 'Package Releases'. -- |