Typo: **not** fulfilled. :-) On Friday, 13 June 2025, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andreas, > > On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 at 21:02, Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> wrote: > > Am Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 09:08:54PM +0200 schrieb Simon Tournier: > > >> Instead, I think we need two intermediary steps: > >> (1) Clarify what means being a member of a team. > >> (2) Clarify the branching model; especially how to deal with grafts. > > > > these are definitely good points, and I like your suggestion of coupling > > grafting with ungrafting commits on a separate (team) branch. But I do > > not think these steps are necessary prerequisites to defining a release > > process, but rather orthogonal. > > Yes I agree it’s orthogonal, but still a requirement if we want that > this proposal becomes actionable (have regular releases, concretely). > > Let stretch a bit the picture. :-) Today, each team updates their scope > and they do independently of the others. The result: it’s almost > impossible to follow and being able to stabilize. > > And stabilizing is another word for releasing. :-) > > Before, it was small enough to say: Ok, although we still have a stream > of changes, the people who wanted to release fixed themselves the > remaining issues. > > Today, that’s almost impossible to “fix themselves” considering the > volume. That’s one of the reason why we are so reluctant to jump in the > release process over the past two and half year. > > If before entering the 12 weeks Release Period and the Teams have not > polished their state, then we will burn out. > > IMHO, the success to be able to release once a year every year is mainly > conditioned by the policies we have on the Teams. > > Obviously, we can first define the Release part and then define the > Teams. The former seems a great motivation for the later. :-) > > To say it explicitly, I think this GCD 005 can only be actionable if it > comes with another companion GCD about the Teams. > > So yes I agree it’s orthogonal, but still a requirement, IMHO. :-) > > > > I think that your list of "what if" questions is not very helpful > > What I want to raise is that “regular” implies to reduce the > “improvisation”, kind of. > > Again, 12 weeks (3 months) of continuous commitment is something. And > it appears to me better to have beforehand some “rules“ in case it’s not > smooth as expected. Else it will not be regular, IMHO. > > What I would like to clarify is what are the “duties” beforehand and how > we act if they are fulfilled – no big deal – it’s only to avoid the > situations where “we do not know” and try to figure out something. > > To me, if we want to have something regular, we should reduce the cases > where we have to think about theses unexpected corner cases, because > when trying to figure out, the real work is not done. Somehow. :-) > > Cheers, > simon >
