Cloud Zone is brought to you in partnership with:

Build a Cloud.org is a resource for those users who want to build cloud computing software with both open source and proprietary software. Mark is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 73 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Release Criteria for Apache CloudStack

10.13.2013
| 1358 views |
  • submit to reddit

This post comes from David Nalley at the Citrix blog.

I recently brought up the idea of release criteria for Apache CloudStack on the development mailing list. I thought I'd pontificate on why I think this is a good idea, and what it really entails. But first a bit of background:

Time based releases 

CloudStack has chosen to embark on time based releases. I personally think this is a good choice. Feature-based releases tend to have scope and time creep. Additionally I think that our user community is reassured when we have regular timely releases. Communities hate surprise, and the corollary to that is that they love knowing what they can expect and when they can expect it, and I think time-based releases do that well, especially for rapidly evolving projects. For projects that are operating in maintenance mode, this is less of a concern.

This doesn't mean that time-based releases are without downsides. One of those is accepting the fact that things may not be perfect, and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that Ubuntu has an excellent analogy to this that resonates well. In their page on time-based releases they note that shipping time-based releases of software is a bit like putting on a play in a theatre. There is a tremendous amount of effort expended in getting ready for a play, and the audience wants to see it, they've paid their money for tickets and are waiting for the doors to open. The show must go on, even if things aren't completely perfect.


Quality Efforts


Admitting that things aren't completely perfect does worry people. We all want perfection. The reality is that we aren't going to eliminate all problems. No software is free from bugs. Our software needs to deliver value, and hopefully keep the time to achieve value to a minimum. This means that we must very cautiously guard and protect a known good state. In my mind this means verifying that proposed changes don't deleteriously affect CloudStack. We have literally thousands of tests that verify various operations of CloudStack - why aren't we using them? Well, in some respects we are and have been. The problem I perceive is that the testing cycle time is relatively long, and that we lack a way of 'enforcing' that.

Alex Huang and Prasanna Santhanam have been working on putting together some automated testing and proposing how we should be using it. I've mentioned before that I think that we need to treat failures in testing as an Andon cord for CloudStack. Commits that break CloudStack aren't bugs, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Especially bugs for which we have a test.

Because 'the show must go on' we must keep CloudStack in a known good state at all times. Features and bugfixes that wish to come in should really demonstrate that they can prove that they don't harm the state of the system. Having a robust testing system that continuously proves that CloudStack is in good shape is certainly a way to ensure that we really are shipping quality software; and don't have days or weeks of cleanup and bugfixing AFTER we discover a problem.

Social Contract

The relationship between the developer community and user community is really an unwritten social contract. There are expectations set (or not) by the developer community around what software will do, how it will behave. Some of these need not be explicitly stated; but many project benefit from explicitly stating things. I really like the Debian Social Contract; but I think it's a very high level document. What should the users of CloudStack expect from an Apache CloudStack release? Do we have standards for the quality of the software we release? Is it an individual release manager's whim? A PMC member's fancy? I think we have implicit standards that we apply as a group - but I think that as we continue to grow, both in terms of users and developers that we need to codify what our expectations are for software to be considered for release. As much for us to know when we are meeting our own expectations, but also for those who consume our software. To that end, the dev@ mailing list will soon have a proposal for defining release criteria. I welcome you to join in the conversation.


Published at DZone with permission of Mark Hinkle, author and DZone MVB. (source)

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)