Re. more regular releases and a roadmap, +1 from me. It's not complicated. We've talked about more regular releases in the past we just need to work actively towards doing it. So let's do it!
-- Jimmy On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > From an outsiders point of view, this whole OCW release has made > interesting viewing :) > > Hopefully you wont mind me adding my 2c, and I don't use the platform so > this is purely hypothetical. > > It would seem to me that is shouldn't be too hard to dump in a bunch of > "releases" into Jira that are quarterly or so, they dont have to be set in > stone, just a rough guide to when the next release is due, at least this > way releases aren't a surprise or creeping up on any body, as is the > roadmap. > > As Lewis mentioned you then assign issues to releases, that list doesnt' > have to be fixed, if something doesn't make it just bump it to the next > release, but at least then people should have a rough idea as to what is > coming in the next release. Outside of the ASF I'm a big fan of the Git > Flow process to get code ready for releasing, you could easily support > something like that in a project like this where a week or so before a > release branch the release code and just accept bug fixes to that branch > whilst not blocking up people who want to commit new stuff to the main > development branch. Use the tools you have available to you! > > Similarly, what's in a number? Just because you've hit 1.0 doesn't mean it > has to be feature complete, but if its major enough then call it 1. If you > have to fix some stuff for the 1 release then call the next one 1.0.1, if > on the other hand you add some new functionality to the code base then call > it 1.1 and everyone should be happy. Of course if your update changes a > load of API stuff or breaks things then call it 2! Its not hard :) > > Regards, > > Tom > > Available for parties, disco's, local events, build and project management. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > OK I sent too soon, sorry about that. > > What I did notice is that both Shakeh Elisabeth Khudikyan and Kim > > Whitehall's apache ID's are not correct on > > http://climate.apache.org/community/people.html. I received bounced > > emails. > > > > Anyway, back to the point > > > > > > - OCW is under development by a small number of people. I work with > this > > day-in-day-out with a number of other Apache projects where the role > of > > the > > project committers and project management committee also becomes one > > which > > involves being an evangelist for the project as well as a developer > and > > user of the code. > > - The positive is that the issues which are being logged and addressed > > are valid, forward thinking, feature rich and certainly very positive > > for > > the project as a whole. > > - Over the last year or so we have not doing terribly well at > attracting > > new members to the OCW community who stay and commit code. I am one of > > them > > and I have committed few lines of code. I do feel that this can be > > partly > > attributed to the lack of evangelism done with those of us who are > > 'around' > > and active should push come to shove. > > - We are releasing way to infrequently. Our last release was in > January > > of 2015. That is 9 months between releases that, whilst not unheard > of, > > is > > less that what we should be achieving. I firmly believe that we could > > drive > > more interest in the codebase if we were driving more releases, > dealing > > with feedback, taking criticism and generally reaching out to more of > > the > > scientific community that OCW is purposed to cater for. > > - It appears that we DO NOT set a road-map. Seeing as there are very > few > > of us, I propose that was do this from now on. E.g. Pick 10-20 issues > > which > > are major level or above (according to Jira), then work on these > between > > development drives. If new issues arrive which are deemed more > serious, > > then we simply evaluate and swap them out. The key here is that we > keep > > development drives to a small number of issue with the purpose of > > driving > > releases. > > > > I think that the above provides us with food for thought. > > > > Any comments from ANYONE on the above? > > > > It has also become obvious to me recently that not everyone is prepared > or > > able to VOTE and undertake similar project related tasks. If this is the > > case, I would kindly ask you to consider going emeritus (or at-least > > classifying your activity at that level on the Website). It is important > > for us to be realistic when we can barely cover enough VOTE's for a > release > > when we have a >20 strong PMC. If you were to go emeritus you would, > should > > you wish to, become active at any stage in the future. This is not an > > issue. I just think that we need to be realistic on what the capabilities > > of the PMC are when those who are active on the project struggle for > close > > to 1 month to get a release VOTE'd on. > > > > Thanks very much for reading. I hope the above provides us with some > > talking points. > > > > Lewis > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > I would like to kick off a very important and long overdue conversation > > > here on list, with anyone watching, monitoring and/or reading their OCW > > > mail, about how we can set more realistic, strategic roadmap's for > > > releasing the project software as official Apache releases. > > > Some thoughts on my part > > > > > > - OCW is under development and the issues which are being logged and > > > addressed are valid, forward looking and > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Lewis* > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Lewis* > > >
