On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/28/2011 07:27 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>> > >>>>> Sergiu has started a script to fully automate a release (more to come > - > >>>>> Sergiu will document what it does soon). The only part not automated > are > >>> the > >>>>> Release Notes. > >>>>> > >>>>> IMO we can "automate" it by a process which I propose to be: > >>>>> > >>>>> * An issue can only be closed if it's documented on xwiki.org and on > >>> the > >>>>> release notes page for the upcoming release. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I`m not very keen of such an approach. This adds paperwork to N people > >>>> (devs) that have already completed a job > >>> > >>> I definitely don't agree here. A dev job is not complete if > >>> * tests are not written > >>> * documentation has not been added > >>> > >>>> , multiplied by M issues (which can > >>>> be more than 1 each day) done by each person... instead of just 1 > person > >>>> (release manager) in charge of a task that is repeated once every > couple > >>> of > >>>> weeks (low frequency). > >>> > >>> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you also suggesting > that > >>> committers should not do code reviews and any of all the other tasks > they're > >>> suppose to do because it takes too much time and would be better done > by a > >>> single individual? I hope not… :) > >>> > >>> Side note: You should try to be a release manager to see what it takes > >>> (although with Sergiu's script it should be much easier now). > >>> > >>>> Plus, the N devs have to use 2 tools to close one single bug. > >>> > >>> What tools? > >>> > >> > >> 1. Jira > >> 2. XWiki.org > > > > We have to use a lot more tools than that to close a bug: > > - an IDE > > - maven > > - git > > - a web browser to do searches on the web > > - etc > > > > I don't see what's the problem of using several tools. > > > >>> > >>>> Why don`t we use Jira's ability to comment on an issue when actually > >>> closing > >>>> it? We could then make a script to automatically round up all such > >>> comments > >>>> for the release process. At least it would be a single application and > it > >>>> would be no major breaking of the flow. > >>> > >>> If what you suggest is automated releases notes, I've been trying to do > >>> that for about 12 years now and it has never worked to a satisfactory > level > >>> ;) > > I second Vincent, making crappy release notes automatically is easy, > just list all the closed issue titles and you're done. But the result > won't make any sense at all, and only the core developers would be able > to understand what they mean. The release notes are supposed to be > clear, simple, and pretty, to attract users that don't care about what > version of the reflections library is used internally, or where does > aether store its cache, but care that we introduced the message stream > feature in 3.0. > > The problem with the release notes is that they take a lot of time to > prepare, and this delays the release too much. > > First part of the release is usually smooth, and can be done in two > hours (most of the time waiting for the permutations of the WYSIWYG > editor to compile). > > Then comes the second part, which involves posting a lot of > announcements summarizing the release. This too shouldn't take that > much, and a well organized person can do it in half an hour. But it > requires that the release notes are ready, and the major features are > listed in a few words (Freshmeat for example limits us to 600 chars). > > And it's hard to go over more than 100 issues one by one and check if > they are worth mentioning, trying to summarize the selected ones in a > few words ("New implementation of the sheet system", "Named parameters > for the event stream", "Office Document Export"), then write some text > to describe the feature in more detail, make up some screenshots of the > feature in use, etc. Then comes the part about migration and backwards > compatibility, and this requires even more detail when going over the > closed issues to determine if some obscure issue that you didn't follow > and have no idea what it's about is going to cause trouble or not. > > So, between the first and the second part of the release there's a big > break. I usually end up doing the second part one day after the first > part, and for 3.2M1 I even screwed it up completely because I didn't > know what to put in the release notes. > > >>> What you suggest is also not very good IMO because it duplicates work > >>> effort since the devs will need to document the stuff on xwiki.organyway. > >>> > >> > >> Please be more clear (preferably with an example) about what you expect > for > >> each developer to document on xwiki.org for each issue closed. > > OK, Vincent was a bit wrong. It's not about *every* issue, but about > every issue that is worth documenting. > > Bugs like http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6925 are too technical and > shouldn't even affect 99.9% of the users, even if they are marked as > Critical, since it's only about upgrades to the previous milestone > (3.2M2) and only for a certain configuration. > > OTOH, trivial tasks like http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6920 should > be mentioned in the release notes in the Upgrades section. > > Big changes like http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6974 deserve not > just a mention in the release notes, but a full documentation page, with > lots of screenshots and explanations. If the developer doesn't feel that > he's up to the task, which does require more people/communication/design > skills, they should ask for help from the marketing department (XWiki > SAS) and work together with them. The marketing department alone doesn't > know how to use a new feature that's fresh out of development, so the > developer has to participate as well, even if only to indicate what > should be mentioned. > > > > For example: > > * Marius add a new sheet module. This needs to be documented on > extensions.xwiki.org as a Module type. > > * Sergiu added changes to the search so the search extension needs to be > reviewed to see if it still matches the changes. > > * "support for OpenOffice 3.3 as the backend of the office importer". We > need to check the doc of the office importer and see if there's any mention > of supported version and update it > > * For ex I updated the component archetype to use the new injection > annotation and I modified > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/WritingComponents as a > consequence (I also have some backlogs to do, for ex when I added support > for JSR330 I haven't modified > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Component+Module, > which is bad and I need to catch up now). > > * etc > Ok, now this makes sense. So the release notes page for the current upcoming release is created as soon as the previous release was launched and it's in a blank state. Then, devs fill it up collaboratively, as soon as they add changes worth mentioning in the release notes. Here's my +1, with the mention that we should add some structure to the release notes (object with sheet instead of blank page) to help the collaborative editing. The release manager will now have to level out the differences in writing styles of the various devs that contributed to the page :) Thanks, Eduard > > > >>>>> * We collectively enforce this by reopening issues if someone doesn't > do > >>>>> the first point, asking him/her to do it > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Not sure how things work on Jira, but maybe we could do a very simple > >>> Jira > >>>> extension/plugin that does not allow closing an issue without > commenting > >>> on > >>>> the chosen solution or whatever it is that we would want in the > release > >>>> notes. > >>> > >>> I don't see how that would help xwiki.org be more up to date. Remember > >>> that release notes should point to documentation not duplicate it. > >>> > >> > >> For instance, in > >> > http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotesXWikiEnterprise32M3I > >> see no link to the list of fixed Jira issues, grouped by issue type. > >> What > >> I see there is a "resume" rather than a full, bullet list (maybe with > >> expandable sections to say 2 words about the stuff done for the > particular > >> issue) of things done. While I agree that the resume is more user > friendly > >> (for users that have the attention span to read full paragraphs), I also > >> think that we should include (prefferably), or at least link to, the > Jira > >> generated issue list. You can`t have people guess that they have to go > to > >> Jira and make 3-5 clicks to get the list of fixed issues. > > A list of 164 issues will hide the real improvements that users care about. > > > Yes we need to do both. We absolutely need the user friendly summary and > it's good to have the full list too. > > What I've done in the past (and I've already prepared it for 3.2 final) > is a link to a filter in JIRA that shows the full list. > > My idea is then to use a JIRA macro that takes this filter and displays > them on the RN page (although a link might be just enough too). > > I prefer a link. The full list is going to be too long and too technical > to fit nicely in the release notes. > > For ex for 3.1 final: > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=10990 > > http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10580 > > > For 3.2 final: > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=10991 > > http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10581 > > > We could do this for each release. It's easy to do. > > Already did, and the link towards them should be placed in the Roadmap > and in the ReleaseNotes. > +1 for the link. > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > >> Thanks, > >> Eduard > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> -Vincent > >>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Eduard > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This will have some nice effects: > >>>>> * xwiki.org will be more up to date than it is now > >>>>> * it's up to the developer to document what they do (I don't think > it's > >>>>> good to push this to someone else) which is good since they have the > >>> most > >>>>> knowledge (side note: it doesn't mean we don't need a technical > writer > >>> to > >>>>> improve on the documentation done by developers but it would be about > >>> style > >>>>> and not about content) > >>>>> * the release notes will be ready for the release, as we progress and > >>> the > >>>>> burden of writing the release notes will not fall on the shoulders of > >>> the > >>>>> Release Manager (there's no reason it should) > >>>>> * the whole release process will almost be a joy to do > >>>>> * with a fully automated release process it means we'll be able to > >>> perform > >>>>> a lot more bugfix releases which is good for our users > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's my +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> -Vincent > > > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
