15 Sep
2016
15 Sep
'16
12:15 p.m.
On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:40, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+0 I'm not thrilled since:
- it will put pressure on the RMs (there are several steps additional done
for final releases + the ci needs to be shiny perfect +
Could you be more specific? I don’t see any change for the RMs.
increases the
number of jobs and branches for versions + branches for partial features);
Actually, as I’ve mentioned in my mail, it should decrease slightly the number of
branches/jobs since we’ll have less bugfix releases for stable versions. Or keep it
similar. But I don’t see an increase.
- in theory all the releases should be tested fully
(before we had a buffer
to catch bugs between Ms + more time for the community to test the
releases) and
Yes that’s part of the rational I put: increase the testers and use more the community to
test.
Our scope has been increasing over the years (more features, more extensions). It’s
important to use more and more the community to help us.
- the roadmap items planning might need more
issues/bureaucracy.
Possibly a bit. But the way I view this is that we’ll continue to do roadmaps every 3
months or so for the coming 3 releases and do the steering every month in case we want to
change it slightly.
Also users might be confused about the
'quality'/frequency of releases and
they might adopt strategies like installing even/odd release version or
just bugfix releases. So I'm not sure this will fix use case in terms of
users feedback.
It does. If you’re an existing user and you’re upgrading, say every 6 months, it won’t
change anything ofc.
But if you’re a new user, you’ll be able to use the latest released version. And report
feedback, bugs, ideas, etc. You won’t start on a 3 months old release.
It's just a feeling I have and I'm a bit
worried since our community is
small, but maybe I'm just resistant to change. I'm willing to try though.
You do look a bit resistant to change :)
But that’s fine. It’s good to have someone playing the devil’s advocate.
However, I haven’t seen any real cause for being worried so far.
Honestly it's almost is a non event and doesn’t change much IMO. It just means
removing the suffix “milestone” from our releases ;)
I would prefer 10 releases N.0 to N.9 (just for
'esthetic' reasons). Also I
would have prefer to start this new version/release scheme for the 9.x
cycle, instead of butchering the 8.4+ stabilization releases (for
'consistency' reasons).
Could you explain what you mean by butchering? Could you also explain what is not clear
in:
“[….]Since that version is already supposed to be a stabilization release (and thus a
short 1 month release) it’s not going to change anything.[…]"
So to remind you, the last stabilization release is already meant to be 1 month (we’ve
been doing this for some time already, even doing it for the last 2 releases in the past
when we had a N.5 release), so as I said, it doesn’t change anything.
So in practice I could have omitted this part since it’s the same as saying we start only
in 9.0 but I wanted to put us in the spirit of the new strategy ASAP.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
Executive summary:
* Replace our 3 month release cycle by a 1 month release cycle.
Needs and advantages:
* Be able to get our changes faster to our users. Importantly, bugfixes
are released faster to users. Note: it’s not because we release faster that
our users have to upgrade as fast. They can skip some versions if they
want/need.
* Be able to get more feedback more quickly from users. Right now, most
(if not all) of our users are testing only final versions. They’re not
testing milestones or RCs and thus we usually only know about problems
after the final has been released and we incorporate the change in the next
one (to be released 3 months later) or we have to do a bugfix release.
* Get closer to cloud needs. Nowadays, could offerings happen more and
more and operating a cloud means bringing improvements and fixes as fast as
possible. Some software in the cloud are even updated/patched several times
per day. We’re not there yet but we’re trying to get closer by reducing
from 3 months to 1 month
* This also means more marketing for the xwiki project since other site
relay the new whenever a final version is released
Proposal Details:
* 1 month split in: 3 weeks to release a RC + 1 week to release the final
version. It’s very important to keep the RC as a meeting point and ensuring
all is going to be ready on time for the final release (jiras are closed or
moved to the next release, CI is passing, documentation and RN are ready,
etc).
* Split large features into smaller chunks. It doesn’t matter if some code
is released but unused for example (provided the build is passing). For
larger refactoring that absolutely cannot be split into 3 weeks chunks (I’m
not sure that really exists) then we can use branches (and create a CI job
to ensure integration).
* Less need for bugfix releases of stable versions. For LTS it’s still
required though.
* Note that this 1 month release strategy will not generate more releases
(and thus more work) over the year since we’re already releasing every 2-3
weeks ATM (milestones, RCs, et)
* Version Naming: from N.0 to N.10 where N is the cycle name. The reason
for 11 releases and not 12 is to account for slippages + potential bugfix
release at the end of the cycle for stabilization + holidays. We might even
be able to do only 10 releases and not 11 but I’m suggesting we try with 11
for now.
When:
* I’m proposing to start this process with the 8.4 release (starting on
the 10th of October). Since that version is already supposed to be a
stabilization release (and thus a short 1 month release) it’s not going to
change anything. We should also do bugfix releases after 8.4 is releases:
8.4.1, 8.4.2, etc till the end of the year
* Then starting 9.0 we really start doing 1 month releases.
WDYT?
Here’s my +1 to try this.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs