Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Martin Landa]

Dear all,

2015-10-25 19:37 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler :
>> I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it
>> seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is
>> a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs.
>
> I agree on this since each RC takes hours of work (check, package,
> upload, write and email announcements, updated many CMS Web pages,
> chase packagers etc etc).

what about following GDAL "approach"? Release manager usually writes
to ML "do you agree that upcoming RCX will be released as final?". If
no objection appears within few days, than the new version is
released. In RFC4 we should require RC1 at least. So first candidate
for final release would be upcoming RC2.

Martin

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Markus Neteler]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Anna Petrášová  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Martin Landa 
...
>> I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release
>> manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be
>> so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped
>> if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more
>> steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra
>> complicated release.
>>
>> Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin
>
>
> I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it
> seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is
> a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs.

I agree on this since each RC takes hours of work (check, package,
upload, write and email announcements, updated many CMS Web pages,
chase packagers etc etc).

Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Moritz Lennert]

On 20/10/15 09:18, Martin Landa wrote:

2015-10-20 9:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa :

Great, so I'll make a motion on this in the next days unless any
objection pops up before.


it seems that there are no objections :-) Martin


reading it again, I would say that in some cases upcoming RC2 could be
released as final. Eg. for upcoming 7.0.2 we have RC1 released. In two
weeks should become RC2, in this case I can image to release final
instead of RC2. So alternative roadmap could be:

Step 3 (X+30 days) - Hard freeze & RC1
Step 4 - Bug squashing
Step 5 (X+44 days) - Final.

In other words I would make RC2 as optional step only we will need it.
It can happen that two RCs could be overkill. What do you think?


The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some 
fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many 
people test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more 
prominent and can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This 
does not mean that RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last 
chance to spot any serious issues.


So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that 
much, or ?


Moritz
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Martin Landa]

Hi Markus,

2015-03-04 20:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler :

[...]

> Great, so I'll make a motion on this in the next days unless any
> objection pops up before.

it seems that there are no objections :-) Martin

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Anna Petrášová]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Martin Landa 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2015-10-20 9:36 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert :
>
> > The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some
> > fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many
> people
> > test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more prominent
> and
> > can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This does not mean
> that
> > RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last chance to spot any
> > serious issues.
> >
> > So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that
> much,
> > or ?
>
> I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release
> manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be
> so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped
> if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more
> steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra
> complicated release.
>
> Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin
>

I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it
seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is
a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs.

Anna

>
> --
> Martin Landa
> http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
> http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
> ___
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

2015-10-20 9:36 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert :

> The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some
> fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many people
> test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more prominent and
> can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This does not mean that
> RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last chance to spot any
> serious issues.
>
> So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that much,
> or ?

I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release
manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be
so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped
if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more
steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra
complicated release.

Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Moritz Lennert]

On 04/03/15 09:19, Martin Landa wrote:

Hi,

2015-03-03 9:31 GMT+01:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be:

A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than
one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an
important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3
can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final
release.


make sense to me, Martin



Ok, I've added the change. In any case we are a small enough team to 
handle things flexibly if needed. For me, the idea of elaborating a 
release procedure is mostly to make the process more explicit and thus 
ease communication, not to hammer laws into stone


Moritz

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Markus Neteler]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Moritz Lennert
mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote:
 On 04/03/15 09:19, Martin Landa wrote:

 Hi,

 2015-03-03 9:31 GMT+01:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be:

 A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more
 than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If
 an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an
 RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before 
 final
 release.


 make sense to me, Martin


 Ok, I've added the change. In any case we are a small enough team to handle
 things flexibly if needed. For me, the idea of elaborating a release
 procedure is mostly to make the process more explicit and thus ease
 communication, not to hammer laws into stone

Great, so I'll make a motion on this in the next days unless any
objection pops up before.

Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Moritz Lennert]

On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote:

Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release.


(just a low priority comment here)

While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short.
And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to
[add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not
or depends.


Overall, we got the release out :-)
Any opinions on above remaining issue?


I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one 
week limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to 
step 6 such as


A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more 
than one week. During that same time the release announcement is 
drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some 
more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week 
of testing before final release.


Moritz
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Michael Barton]

I agree.

Michael

C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics  Complexity 
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution  Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science
Arizona State University

voice:  480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC),  480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu















 On Mar 3, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote:
 
 I agree with the suggested modification by Moritz,
 
 Helena
 
 Helena Mitasova
 Professor at the Department of Marine, 
 Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
 and Center for Geospatial Analytics
 North Carolina State University
 Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
 hmit...@ncsu.edu
 http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/
 All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are 
 sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law 
 and may be disclosed to third parties.” 
 
 On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote:
 
 On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote:
 Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release.
 
 (just a low priority comment here)
 
 While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit 
 short.
 And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to
 [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not
 or depends.
 
 Overall, we got the release out :-)
 Any opinions on above remaining issue?
 
 I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one week 
 limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to step 6 such 
 as
 
 A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than 
 one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an 
 important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 
 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final 
 release.
 
 Moritz
 ___
 grass-psc mailing list
 grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
 
 ___
 grass-psc mailing list
 grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Helena Mitasova]

I agree with the suggested modification by Moritz,

Helena

Helena Mitasova
Professor at the Department of Marine, 
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
hmit...@ncsu.edu
http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/
All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent 
to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may 
be disclosed to third parties.” 

On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote:

 On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote:
 Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release.
 
 (just a low priority comment here)
 
 While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit 
 short.
 And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to
 [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not
 or depends.
 
 Overall, we got the release out :-)
 Any opinions on above remaining issue?
 
 I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one week 
 limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to step 6 such as
 
 A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than 
 one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an 
 important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 
 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final 
 release.
 
 Moritz
 ___
 grass-psc mailing list
 grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Markus Neteler]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote:
 Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release.

 (just a low priority comment here)

 While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit 
 short.
 And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to
 [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not
 or depends.

Overall, we got the release out :-)
Any opinions on above remaining issue?

 Overall, RFC4 looks pretty reasonable to me.

Let's vote soon (once above issue is added to RFC4).

Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Markus Neteler]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote:
 Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release.

(just a low priority comment here)

While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short.
And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to
as a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not
or depends.

Overall, RFC4 looks pretty reasonable to me.

Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

2014-06-11 11:30 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be:
 Recent discussion have convinced me that we might need a more clearly
 defined release procedure for the GRASS project in order to make release
 more fluid and less conflictual.

thanks for your effort.

 I very rapidly drafted a RFC for that:

 http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure

 It's a very early draft and discussions and modifications are more than
 welcome.

AT first look, draft looks reasonable. More comments later.

Martin

-- 
Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc