It seems that if we want to shorten a release cycle, we have 2 options: #1 No RC release #2 No staging
I think it would be a shame to scrap staging over this, especially since my understanding is we want to move toward frequent releases with no release candidates or milestones so staging would be a requirement. This is an interesting topic which can be discussed. Right now for 4.1 I think we need a coherent proposal rather than an adhoc chop-and-slice of the agreed upon schedule and dates. Finally, I'm concerned about changing our release process in the middle of a release which is behind it's normal schedule. I'm not completely opposed to a change but IMO if we want to change it we need to proceed with extra caution. Thanks, Caleb On 06/08/2012 03:15 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'd like to bring an issue with this VOTE below. > > When I initially read it I didn't realize that this was about doing > double-staging: > * once with nexus staging > * another one with the RC release > > So it increases the time we spend for doing releases instead of reducing it > which is the direction we would like to go. > > The increase is bad because we're already spending too much time just on the > release itself while we should reduce it to a minimum so that we can focus on > developing new features/improvements/fixing bugs. > > So IMO if we really want to go with staging we need to remove the RC phase > and go from M2 to Final directly. However if we were to do this we would need > to find a way to advertise it as a release on all channels because this is > the time when we need to most testers. Right now it seems to me that an > official RC is much more powerful than staging > > Thus I'd like to retract my vote on this (if it's not possible I'll send a > new vote to not do double staging). > > Thanks > -Vincent > > PS: Sorry for not realizing this earlier... > > On May 22, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to add staging to our official release process. >> For milestone releases, I propose the staging cycle be for "0 time" (this >> may be revisited later). >> For RC or finals, we place the release in staging and immediately call a >> VOTE to publish the release, this gives our testing team (everybody!) 72 >> hours to raise a potential issue. >> >> Why: >> >> #1. After some chat on IRC I decided that it is advantageous to move toward >> a faster release cycle and begin moving away from milestone releases in >> favor of staging. This will set the stage for the release method we will >> need. >> >> #2. Staging is easy, I've modified the release script to include staging and >> with the script, it is a simple matter of about 5 clicks on nexus to >> "login", "close repository", "release repository". >> >> #3. Staging is safe, the RM need not worry about fat fingers breaking the >> release, all it costs is time. >> >> #4. The release process should be as close to the same as possible for >> milestone and RC/final releases. This simplifies scripting of the process, >> decreases the amount the RM must remember and makes every milestone release >> a rehearsal. >> >> #5. Everybody else is doing it (is that even a reason?!) >> >> >> Mandatory? >> I would rather impress the RM with how easy and helpful staging can be than >> bind him with rules. >> If I had followed the existing process to the letter, I would not have had >> any experience with staging to begin with. >> In the interest of continuous improvement I would like to make this a strong >> recommendation, not a strict rule. >> >> >> Here's my +1 >> >> Caleb > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
