I am not sure there is any process in place right now. I have been advocating a couple of times for requiring developers who change anything related to databases to provide working and tested update scripts (and will keep doing so).
Any other approach (including the checkbox on the Jira ticket) will in my mind lead to a major overhead during QA (certainly as long as there is no reliably schema generation in place) and even worse to offloading the responsability for catching all relevant codechanges and producing correct ddl and update scripts to the release manager, who already has enough on his plate. It is almost as if I were allowed to change some REST endpoint and then simply tick a checkbox, suggesting that I'm done. Instead, I am required to adjust the remote implementation, adjust the integration tests, update (or create) documentation and, last but not least, let my fellow co-developers and adopters know that this REST endpoint will change, so they are able to prepare for the next release and adjust their local integrations accordingly. We all want a stable system that is trusted (and further recommended) by our adopters. By allowing (and making it easy for) developers to push off tasks that they don't like that are critical to keeping adopters on board and facilitate adopting institutions to follow the releases we are directl walking into the opposite direction: who would want to invest into a system that first and foremost appears to be a few developer's playground? Rolling out a lecture capture program is a major undertaking and requires a certain amount of trust into the system and its surrounding (aka developers and community). If we as a project are not able to build this trust, Matterhorn cannot be a relevant choice for institutions that take lecture capture seriously. And that would be a shame, given that we offer standards, scalability, openness and lots of features part of which are well ahead of our competitors. Sorry if this has turned into a long winded rant. But I we probably won't have too many opportunities to screw up release management and even more so migration strategies. Tobias On 15.03.2012, at 17:48, Nils Hendrik Birnbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > At the moment, the checkbox does nothing. We just decide, that we need it. We > should add the underling process to Tobias proposal for the 1.4 Release > processes. > > regards > Nils > > Am 15.03.2012 um 16:21 schrieb Greg Logan: > >> So, now that we have the convenient 'Conversion script required' button, >> what does that actually do? Does the RM need to have a filter setup to >> look for these tickets? Does it email list? >> >> G >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Matterhorn mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn >> >> >> To unsubscribe please email >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Matterhorn mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn > > > To unsubscribe please email > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
