>-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Sharples [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:44 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: May reports due in ten days > >On 23/04/2012 13:06, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 23 April 2012 10:37, Scott Wilson<[email protected]> >wrote: >>> On 23 Apr 2012, at 09:49, Ross Gardler wrote: >> ... >> >>>> However, we've pretty much failed to discuss this. This is not a good >>>> sign. None of us have had the time to drive this important issue. >>> Easter holidays did kind of get in the way... >> Sure, but that's a few days in the quarter. I'm not saying that we >> must do more (I'm the least active of the active people here). I'm >> just saying that the lack of progress is an indicator of the problems >> of a small community. This is not unique to Wookie and is not >> something to worry about as long as the project is progressing. >> However, it is something we need to at acknowledge and, where >> critical, address. As I said in my first mail... >> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there is a fundamental problem >>>> here. I'm just saying we need to crack on with it. >> ... >> >>>> I know from my own conversations with Wookie users that the >>>> "incuabting" label is holding some people back (although it may just >>>> as well be a convenient excuse). I propose that we undertake to >>>> graduate in the next quarter. >>> +1. >> As champion and a mentor I'm willing to make the case for graduation. >> My primary concern is our release process is still a little haphazard. >> You address this in your mail and I'm happy to see that moving on. >> >>>> Matt can you help Wookie get to the point of doing regular releases, >>>> preferably synced with Rave. I don't mean Rave depends on a Wookie >>>> making a new release, I mean we aim to have a new Wookie release out >>>> two weeks before the next Rave release is due. >>> I think 0.10.0 is almost ready to go. I'd say the only issue we need to >address before starting the next release process is WOOKIE-326, the rest can >be pushed back. >> Great. What do you think about committing to a regular release cycle >> aligned with that of Rave? > >This sounds reasonable to me. > >>> I know Paul was also intending to write some doc on the release process. > >With this documentation in place, it should aid others to help with the >release process and also make it more transparent.
Has this been started anywhere? I see a very high level description of the process on the site; but not a detailed step-by-step release plan... > >> Great! >> >> Ross >>
