Breaking this message out specifically to discuss extending the 3.2 release

We have a lot of competing priorities at the moment.  This week really
should be about wrapping up feature merges, but the pending Beta is forcing
us to address a number of outstanding issues, and each depends on the other.

Extending the release schedule seems perfectly reasonable to me.  My only
concern is determining how best to leverage the Sept 10-14 bug squashing
week.  Ideally, all major changes would be merged so we can work out the
kinks during the group bug squashing.

That means features, XUL removal, and Angular merging would need to be done
by the end of next week, with time to spare to ensure all this chaos leaves
us with a usable code base for testers.

To buy us some breathing room in the short term, I'll make this proposal:

Feature freeze pushed to Sept 4th.
XUL and Angular merge freeze Sept 7th.
Bug Squashing Sept 10-14
Beta Sept 19th (remaining targets pushed back 2 weeks as well).

This may not be the extension you were hoping for Kathy, and we can
certainly modify this, but this at least gives us a little time to focus
specifically on wrapping up the big ticket items before bug squashing

Suitable compromise for now?  Thoughts?



On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:39 PM Kathy Lussier <> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> In looking at the list of showstoppers, I see one has a pullrequest, so it
> seems reasonable it could be tested and merged soon. For the other bugs,
> does anyone have a sense of whether any are particularly complex? Or are
> they mostly straightforward bugs that just haven't been addressed yet due
> to lack of tuits? If it's the latter, could we consider delaying the full
> release (with xul removal) until the showstoppers are fixed?
> I'm concerned about the breakage that is likely to occur the longer we
> continue to make the xul client available in our releases, but these bugs
> were identified as real issues in getting libraries to adopt the web
> client. At this time, there are just a handful of remaining showstoppers,
> and if we can commit to getting them resolved before the full release, I
> think it will make a smoother transition to 3.2 for our libraries.
> Kathy
> --
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
> (508)
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:47 PM Bill Erickson <> wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM <
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>     I have two questions about this:
>>> 1.       You mentioned a vote. Who is the “we” that votes?
>> Good question.  This would be a core developer vote.   I started typing
>> this as a developer list message, then added the general list just before
>> sending...
>> From my perspective, this vote is more about getting a public record of
>> developer buy-in (or otherwise) as is typically the case before proceeding
>> with a large architectural change.  It also acts as a "should we do this?"
>> safety valve.  However, I call the vote now because in my opinion as RM we
>> are ready to proceed and I suspect that's what we'll decide.  It's not done
>> 'til it's done, though.
>> It's also worth reminding everyone we are also providing extended support
>> for Evergreen 3.1, so users can continue using the XUL client for a longer
>> period of time.  Normally, a release is supported for 12 months of bug
>> fixes, plus 3 months of security fixes.  3.1 will be supported for a longer
>> period of time -- duration TBD -- so sites will have more time before
>> needing to upgrade to 3.2.  This will buy us more time in the community to
>> continue squashing bugs as well.
>>> 2.       If it is determined that not enough blockers are fixed, does
>>> this mean that a 3.2 version of XUL will be made available and XUL will not
>>> be removed until 3.3
>>> Yes, if the core developers vote not to proceed with XUL removal, it
>> would be delayed until the next release cycle (3.3).
>> Just to offer some perspective, from the dev side it's not just a
>> question of how many web staff blockers remain, but how much work is
>> required to resolve each, who can sign up to fix them, how many sites they
>> likely affect, how much developer time will be siphoned away from fixing
>> these issues trying to maintain XUL in 3.2 (!), the fact the XUL is already
>> a little bit broken in 3.2 based on the agreement it would it would be
>> removed, etc, etc.
>> Thanks,
>> -b

Reply via email to