This project is probably better equipped than most to make release candidate validation only a small increment in effort over precommit or nightly tests. As Sean said, dogfooding. (Although - I dislike that term, can we find another?) It should be little more that verifying hashes, signature, notice/license file presence and correctness. Weekly releases could be doable. Certainly I would have time on a weekly basis for that.
In contrast, yeah, Hadoop or HBase builds... Whenever spinning those for public or private consumption it is an *all day* affair. > On Dec 10, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was thinking of it more like my other projects, where I typically do a > small QA pass over the release, specifically testing several of the new > patches and regression testing existing features that have a recent > history of quality problems. That kind of RC validation typically takes > me multiple hours to complete. > > I'm happy to try the weekly cadence and possibly settle into a shorter > validation process. We can tune the process later if we start to see the > weekly votes fizzle. > > +1 overall for the plan. > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > >> On 12/10/15, 10:53 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Chris Nauroth >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 2. If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting weekly releases if >>> there are code changes. With only 6 PMC members who have binding votes, >>> it's a lot to ask of a small number of people. I see a risk of many of >>> these votes fizzling out and expiring without getting enough binding >>> votes. How would you feel about a longer regular cadence, such as >>> monthly, with the option to invoke additional out-of-band releases as >>> needed for critical fixes? >> >> I'm not sure. For most of the projects I'm involved in, I'd agree. But >> for Yetus we dog food almost everything. At the time of a RC, it seems >> like the only thing to do is check hashes and signatures on two files. >> >> How much time would that be? We won't really know until we start >> having them, I suppose. If it's ~10 minutes, is that too much? >
