Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
The following borrows quite heavily from an earlier proposal called
"[Proposal] Development process and a stable trunk". I hope I can put
this across more clearly this time.
I'll try to make it short :-)
Different Approaches to Development
-----------------------------------
There are two major approaches to software development represented in
the this project at the moment:
- the evolutionary coding approach where concepts are developed while
coding and
- the classic approach of developing and discussing a concept in
theory that is then coded and refinded.
...
Different Users
---------------
From a user's perspective. I can see at
least three different approaches:
1. Very Early Adopters (VEA) will be happy to always work with the latest
unreleased version to try all the new features before
they are even released.
...
2. A second group, let's call them Early adopters (EA), is also
prepared to try and use new features in their projects, but for some
reason cannot run sites with a bleeding edge version.
...
3. A third group are users of released code (URC). For what ever
reasons they are happy to use a released and documented version and
have neither skill nor urge to use anything else.
In open source projects there is a fourth type of user. This one sits
somewhere between your type 1 and type 2, lets call them type "one and a
half".
These people are very technical and are able to work on experimental
parts of the code base where that code adds benefit to their project.
However, they may not want to work with other experimental parts of the
code base.
As far as I can tell, we are currently doing ok for groups 1 and 3,
while group 2 is quite often unable to work with trunk in their
projects. As a result we are loosing valuable input and participation.
Agreed. The plugin system should make it possible to accomodate the type
"one and a half" people. Just develop new experimental code as a plugin
and leave it up to the adopters to choose whether to use it or not. This
can work well, witness the fact that dispatcher work, in the main, did
not affect users of core.
Different ways of Participation
-------------------------------
...
We should design a development process that will allow both to
follow developments, to participate and contribute.
That's a tall order, lets see how well you do...
How to achieve all that?
------------------------
My idea is actually quite simple and it basically extends the
white-board concept already in place.
I'll try to explain it in a few headlines:
1. Freedom of choice
If a group of people get the itch to develop something for Forrest it
should be up to them to choose the development method that works best
for them.
2. Whiteboard
Any new development starts in whiteboard and will not become part of
trunk until it is internally released (will define that in a moment).
Let me expand on that a little - new *feature* development is in a
whiteboard plugin, or if this is not possible in a branch.
Being in whiteboard means:
- people are completely free in how they approach development, if and
how they document it and how often they change their concepts.
- they are encouraged to develop and document their concepts early and
discuss it with the whole of the project (to make sure everybody
agrees with their architectural views) but there is no obligation to
do so.
- up to the point of internal release committers and other developers
are welcome to but not expected to follow discussions on such a
development or to involve themselves in the development process.
- clear indicators will help to tell group internal threads from normal
project-wide discussion so that people can safely ignore group
internal mails if they chose to do so.
There are a few problems with this:
Firstly:
The strength of Open Source development is the many eyes concept. To
encourage people to ignore parts of the development we are removing
this. We need to be very careful what we mean by "safely ignore". From a
quality perspective we cannot "safely ignore" since important issues
may be missed. However, since everything is in a plugin and that plugin
may never make it out of the whiteboard we are protecting the core
project. So I'll play along for now - I'm interested in seeing your
proposal for migration out of the whiteboard.
Secondly:
PMC oversight is requried to ensure that there are no legal issues with
new code being developed. If we "safely ignore" development on some
aspect we are possibly ignoring critical issues. That being said, the
reality is that no single member of the PMC reads every single commit
message or email anyway. So again, I think the problem is in the
terminology rather than your intent.
Thirdly:
It should be reinforced that if someone decides not to particpate in
development of a new feature within the whiteboard there opinions in
terms of arcitecture and design are still valid. One does not have to
contribute code to contribute to a development effort. We have seen that
it can be upsetting for developers creating new code when they get
feedback that generates yet more work, but they get little in the way of
code contributions. This is to be expected from the "one and a half"
people since they have a deep understanding of the core system and its
direction, but little time to contribute to every part of development.
However, even though everyone is entitled to an opinion, it does not
mean the whiteboard developers have to impelment it in line with that
opinion. If their itch is different then fair enough.
3: Internal release
When the group is satisfied with architecture, features and
performance of their development they propose an 'internal release' to
integrate their development into trunk (or move a plugIn out of the
whiteboard).
Minimum Requirements for internal release are:
(this may need further discussion)
- A well documented and stable architectural concept that the group is
prepared to defend in a project wide discussion.
- Stable code that is not mature enough not to break trunk
You mean that *is* mature enough not to break trunk.
- Basic low level practical documentation
= how to install
= what will break / what needs to be done to migrate
= how do I use its features
- A preparedness to answer silly questions from people who try to
flesh out documentation in the next stage.
lets add:
A suite of tests. For plugins that are well documented we have tests
built into the documentation. That is if the docs have examples of all
features, then doing "ant test" in the plugin directory will run the
tests accordingly.
The outcome of the application can be one of the following:
- Acceptance
The development is sound and complete and is considered to be a
useful extension of Forrest that we are happy to support as part
of Forrest. It will then be scheduled for the next release (see
4. below)
- Postponement
The development is either incomplete or has other deficiencies
(including poor design, performance etc.)
It remains in whiteboard for improvement and can once again be
proposed for internal release later on.
- Rejection because the proposal violates basic design concepts, adds
blinking text or is deemed useless by the project (add other
reasons).
It may remain in whiteboard for everybody to use or give it another
try.
OK, this is all fine and can be covered by a simple majority vote after
discussing the proposal.
4. External Release
Developments accepted in the internal release process should be
scheduled for release as soon as possible.
As a rule we should not wait to accumulate several features but aim
to release each feature on its own so that users can familiarize
themselves with and test each new feature as soon as possible.
In the case of plugins this is no problem since they can now have an
independant release cycle.
So, wdyt?
I like it.
Ross
