+1 Jon.
If we want to check the release, there is a lot of things to do.

I usually also rebuild everything from an empty repo. Without my new
computer, ... you know the history ;-) even with my new MAC it took more
than an hour just to rebuild everything.

Just a note.
Thx anyway guys
Jean-Louis
Le 20 avr. 2012 01:54, "Jonathan Gallimore" <[email protected]>
a écrit :

> I think this is a great idea and I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome.
> Just one thought I had (and you have already noted it) is that for me, it
> would be slightly more ideal if had some weekend time to look over things -
> a 72 hour vote that ends on a Friday is a little tricky for me. I'll do
> what I can tomorrow to try and get a vote in.
>
> I might be over-doing it, but I usually spend a reasonably big chunk of
> time on voting: I usually run a build from the tag with all the tests,
> check that I can download the artifacts, and that the checksums are
> correct. I take a good look at the legal report and try and spot anything
> that isn't right. Finally I try a clean unzip of the binaries and try some
> other applications and give it a good test - usually using something I'm
> working on in the day job at the time. I'd say it takes quite a bit longer
> than an hour - probably more like 3 or 4.
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:06 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > We typically reroll and revote several times.  This ok and rerolling is
> > expected (you need it for quality).  But there is a cost to rerolling:
> >
> >  - if the binaries are too much of moving target people wait to give
> their
> > feedback
> >  - it isn't realistic or a good use of time to expect people to honestly
> > evaluate multiple sets of binaries
> >  - we loose many votes on each reroll and final votes usually have a
> > fraction of the +1s
> >  - people feel bad about voting -1 and they shouldn't -- it's ok if done
> > in a timely manner
> >
> > As an experiment for this vote (we'll see how it goes), I'd like to
> > enforce a strict 72 hour period.  If you plan on voting, get your vote in
> > by Friday 10pm PDT.
> >
> >
> > Here's the thinking....
> >
> >
> > FIRST VOTE
> >
> > You should feel welcome and encouraged to vote -1 in this time.  You
> > aren't raining on anyone's parade :)  In fact, you are contributing to
> > quality.  It looks negative "-1", but it is actually a positive
> > contribution.  Please use the "-1" for clarity.
> >
> >
> > SECOND VOTE
> >
> > At the end of this 72 hour period we will roll a second set of binaries
> > that incorporate all the feedback of the first.
> >
> >  - Everyone who voted in the first vote will be expected to vote again.
> >  - The vote will close when either:
> >     - everyone from the first vote has vote again
> >     - 72 hours
> >
> > The vote can close early if everyone reaffirms their +1s or that their
> > issue (-1) was addressed, so please reaffirm your vote.
> >
> > This can be a very short vote if everyone cooperates.  So 5 minutes or 72
> > hours, it's up to us :)
> >
> > Subsequent votes, if needed, will follow these rules.
> >
> >
> > MAKING UP FOR BEING LATE
> >
> > If you did not vote at all in the first vote and feel the need to vote -1
> > in a subsequent vote, your feedback is still welcome but understand that
> > your feedback is also very late and you have cost everyone who did take
> the
> > time to vote at least an hour of their time (more if there have already
> > been a couple votes).  Do not do so lightly.
> >
> > Here are some great ways you can offset the cost:
> >
> >  - Immediately fix the issue you point out
> >  - Give each individual who voted an hour of service, per vote, on a task
> > of their choosing.
> >
> > That would probably cover it nicely :)
> >
> >
> > POSSIBLE VARIATIONS
> >
> > We'll see how it goes, but if the basic concept works out, I can see
> maybe
> > extending the first vote period to say 4 days (96 hours) instead of 3 (72
> > hours).
> >
> >
> > Anyway, we'll try it out and see if it has a positive impact on the flow
> > of releases.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to