On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Chad <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking ahead to 1.19, I'd like to do the same and branch soon after 1.18 has > been dropped. Since 1.19's a little further out and hasn't started taking > shape > yet, I'd like to go ahead and propose what sort of release we should aim for. > > Going back over the past couple of releases, we've had quite a few "rewrites" > of major portions of code. While these are a necessary part of the process of > developing MW, they are difficult to review due to their complexity. This > complexity also makes it more likely for things to break. If I may be so bold, > I would like to ask that 1.19 not contain any of these rewrites. Let's focus > on > making it a bugfix/cleanup release. Personally I think it would make for a > very > clean and polished release, as well as reducing the time for us to review and > ship it. > I like this idea, although it does mean pushing back the iwtransclusion branch merge to 1.20, presumably. But then you say:
> If we go this route, I don't see any reason we couldn't ship 1.19 by year end > (or if we really push, 11.11.11, as the other thread suggested). We'd be branching 1.18 in mid-May (when 1.17 goes final). If we release a beta of 1.19 in November and it's a small release, we should branch in October (or branch in November and release by year end). That means there'd be 5 or 6 months of development in 1.19. I'm on board with shooting for a clean and polished release, but we shouldn't make /any/ release longer than 4 months, and this one should probably be 3 IMO. Also, 6 months is a long time for a ban on rewrites. I've seen a few suggestions about release schedules on this list now, and all of them seem to, implicitly or explicitly, accept that releases contain outrageous amounts of code and take more than 3 months to stabilize, just because that's what happened with 1.17. Instead, I'd like us to be ambitious about not repeating the 1.17 fiasco, and aiming for a shorter cycle. Tim is right in the other thread that cycles can be too short, but I think once every 3-4 months is good middle ground. In any case, if stabilizing a release to even get it to the first beta takes more than a month, something is fundamentally wrong IMO. > think it would > put us in a really good place to move forward into 2012, and help get us back > into a somewhat regular release pattern. > I agree and applaud this goal, though per the above I'm not entirely sure we mean the same thing when we say "regular release pattern". Roan Kattouw (Catrope) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
