15 Sep
2016
15 Sep
'16
11:18 a.m.
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
15 Sep
15 Sep
11:40 a.m.
+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 + increases the
number of jobs and branches for versions + branches for partial features);
- 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
- the roadmap items planning might need more issues/bureaucracy.
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'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.
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).
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
11:47 a.m.
Also the design for our Download page might not be optimal with this
change. Users will have to go more to the Other versions if they will be
'recommended' a particular version (just like I said if they will adopt
some odd/even or divisibility by 5 rule, etc).
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, 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 + increases the
number of jobs and branches for versions + branches for partial features);
- 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
- the roadmap items planning might need more issues/bureaucracy.
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'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.
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).
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
12:04 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
Also the design for our Download page might not be
optimal with this
change. Users will have to go more to the Other versions if they will be
'recommended' a particular version (just like I said if they will adopt
some odd/even or divisibility by 5 rule, etc).
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, 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 + increases the
> number of jobs and branches for versions + branches for partial features);
> - 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
> - the roadmap items planning might need more issues/bureaucracy.
>
> 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.
We still have LTS for this. Like before users want to be safe will install LTS.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
+1
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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
1:23 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
By butchering I meant having 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, etc. and having to explain
the users that for the 8.x cycle the versioning strategy changed meanwhile
and 8.7 is equivalent to 7.4 final. But the thing is that I forgot that
8.4+ were shorter releases, so I guess you are right: it doesn't change a
thing. By the end of the year we should have just 8.4 and 8.5.
Thanks for the explanations,
Caty
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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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
1:39 p.m.
On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:23, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
By butchering I meant having 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, etc. and having to explain
the users that for the 8.x cycle the versioning strategy changed meanwhile
and 8.7 is equivalent to 7.4 final. But the thing is that I forgot that
8.4+ were shorter releases, so I guess you are right: it doesn't change a
thing. By the end of the year we should have just 8.4 and 8.5.
Actually we’ve decided a while back to no longer have N.5 releases because we don’t have
enough time at the end and we usually have to carry the remaining stabilization/polishing
work in the next year.
So the idea is to have 8.4 till around mid November (i.e. 1 month) and then to do bug fix
releases of 8.4 every 2 weeks, i.e. 8.4.1, 8.4.2, etc.
And then on Jan 2nd, start 9.0.
Thanks
-Vincent
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.[…]"
Thanks for the explanations,
Caty
>
> 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
11:48 a.m.
+1 Let's try.
Thanks,
Marius
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
2:02 p.m.
+1
2016-09-15 11:18 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>et>:
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
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
29 Sep
29 Sep
1:28 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Change the release cycle to 1 month (RESULT)
Result:
+1 vincent
+0 caty
+1 marius
+1 thomas
+1 guillaume
The vote is passed.
I’ve now updated our doc at
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/VersioningAndReleasePractices
Let’s start applying this for 8.4 now.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:18, 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
3005
days inactive
3019
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Guillaume Delhumeau -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol