Daniel, would you find it feasible to make a 2.4 release every first Tuesday of the month? Other projects have excellent experiences with such release timings.
I‘d expect this would let us focus on the changes („one more week until release“), take off pressure („we can do it in the next release“), avoid meta discussions („is this a good time?“) and let us streamline the test/release work with changes in process/automation with a higher motivation. Again, this would be your burden and call until we have so much routine/automation that everyone can do it. So it needs to be your decision. Cheers, Stefan > Am 19.04.2018 um 00:43 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net>: > > On 4/18/2018 10:58 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >>> The release cycle is hours, to the benefit of all interested. Be it a >>> blocking bug fixed or a nice feature implemented. These are mostly people >>> who do it for fun. Some even run large server clusters, so a „hobbyist“ >>> label does not apply. >> Hours, yes, but we've had a willing RM, who has automated even >> more of this than Jim or I had, and has a very hard time finding >> any target to point to. E.g. "ok, that looks like the right resolution >> to the last of the regressions... let's..." ... "...oh there are all these >> other shiny objects in STATUS... rock-n-roll!!!" >> ... > > What's particularly interesting to me, as I follow the conversation in > my usual lurker-mode, is that Bill hit the nail on the head with this > observation. I was waiting for the dust to settle to run through the > scripts again for another T&R and release vote... but am not totally > sure if we're ready. (mea culpa: my brain melted as I tried to follow > the merging discussion so instead started parsing for "Yep. We're good > now.") > > My current read on the conversation is that we're happy (or maybe just > content) with the SSL merging fixes and we should prep to ship 2.4.34 as > a fix. Does anyone disagree? > > -- > Daniel Ruggeri >
