Ok, no on-line responses to this.  But David and I talked and we agreed that
I should take the release manager role this time around.  So I'll be doing
these steps today.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Sebastian Benthall <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ok, based discussions, here is an amended proposal.  Comments + votes much
> appreciated!
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Once we do the 1.0beta release, I propose we do the following:
>
>   * Stop actively developing on master.  Instead, master should be
> periodically updated with a pointer to the improved release branch. (I'd
> expect this would happen at official release candidate stages, and then
> the final 1.0 release)
>
>   * Continue active development of features not meant for 1.0 on a new
> branch (code name: 'community development branch')
>
>   * Make a branch, release-branch-1.0, to which we only commit bug fixes
> (pulled from community development branch)
>
>
> We should also elect a release manager.  The release manager should have
> the following duties:
>
>   * Take responsibility for bringing commits from the community development
> branch to the release branch.  The release manager can opt to do it
> themselves, or can ask for community assistance, at their discretion.
>
>   * Make release announcements to the mailing list, including lists of bugs
> fixed.
>
>   * Tagging the master branch with the release and release candidates.
>
>   * Building the pre-release tarball, testing it, and putting it somewhere
> accessible.
>
>   * Determining if any other release processes are necessary and bringing
> them up on the list.
>
>   * Documenting their steps so that somebody else can be release manager
> later.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> If the above proposal passes, then it raises the following items:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUB PROPOSAL (A):  What should we name the community development branch?
>
> Ballot:
>
>  [ ]  integration
>  [ ]  unstable
>  [ ]  trunk
>  [ ] Other: ____________________ (write in candidate)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUB PROPOSAL (B):  Who should be the release manager?
>
>  [ ]  David
>  [ ]  Seb
>  [ ]  David and Seb settle the question with dueling water pistols at
> sunset on the OpenGeo roof deck.
>  [ ] Other: __________________ (write in candidate)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Sebastian Benthall <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> We will soon be tagging a 1.0beta release and publishing the tarball for
>> the release.
>>
>> Something I don't think we've talked about much is how development will
>> proceed on git branches after that release.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to propose a plan of action for team consideration,
>> referring to this blog post David sent out earlier for reference:
>> http://nvie.com/git-model
>>
>> Once we do the 1.0beta release, I propose we do the following:
>>
>>   * Stop actively developing on master.  Instead, a 1.0 release manager
>> should be chosen to pick when master should updated with a pointer to the
>> improved release branch. (I'd expect this would happen at official release
>> candidate stages, and then the final 1.0 release)
>>
>>   * Continue active development of features not meant for 1.0 on a new
>> branch.  We could call it 'develop' like in the blog post but out of svn
>> nostalgia and because I think it's weird to give a branch a name that's a
>> verb I'd be +1 calling it "trunk"
>>
>>   * Make a branch, release-branch-1.0, to which we only commit bug fixes
>> (pulled from trunk)
>>
>> In addition to the above proposal, I'd be +0 on the release manager being
>> the person responsible for bringing commits from trunk into the release
>> branch.  I think that should be up to the release manager though.
>>
>> If the above proposal is accepted, then I would nominate David as 1.0
>> release manager.
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Benthall
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Benthall
> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>
>


-- 
Sebastian Benthall
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org

Reply via email to