8 Jun
2012
8 Jun
'12
11:12 a.m.
On Jun 8, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
It seems that if we want to shorten a release cycle, we have 2 options:
#1 No RC release
#2 No staging
I think it would be a shame to scrap staging over this, especially since
my understanding is we want to move toward frequent releases with no
release candidates or milestones so staging would be a requirement.
This is an interesting topic which can be discussed.
Right now for 4.1 I think we need a coherent proposal rather than an adhoc chop-and-slice
of the agreed upon schedule and dates.
Finally, I'm concerned about changing our release process in the middle
of a release which is behind it's normal schedule. I'm not completely
We're not behind schedule at all.
Again the dates we've shown to the world are those listed on
http://enterprise.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Roadmap
And they say:
* RC1 released on 11th
* Final released on 18th
So we're still good :)
Thanks
-Vincent
opposed to a change but IMO if we want to change it we
need to proceed with extra caution.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 06/08/2012 03:15 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi guys,
I'd like to bring an issue with this VOTE below.
When I initially read it I didn't realize that this was about doing double-staging:
* once with nexus staging
* another one with the RC release
So it increases the time we spend for doing releases instead of reducing it which is the
direction we would like to go.
The increase is bad because we're already spending too much time just on the release
itself while we should reduce it to a minimum so that we can focus on developing new
features/improvements/fixing bugs.
So IMO if we really want to go with staging we need to remove the RC phase and go from M2
to Final directly. However if we were to do this we would need to find a way to advertise
it as a release on all channels because this is the time when we need to most testers.
Right now it seems to me that an official RC is much more powerful than staging
Thus I'd like to retract my vote on this (if it's not possible I'll send a
new vote to not do double staging).
Thanks
-Vincent
PS: Sorry for not realizing this earlier...
On May 22, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Hi,
I'd like to add staging to our official release process.
For milestone releases, I propose the staging cycle be for "0 time" (this may
be revisited later).
For RC or finals, we place the release in staging and immediately call a VOTE to publish
the release, this gives our testing team (everybody!) 72 hours to raise a potential
issue.
Why:
#1. After some chat on IRC I decided that it is advantageous to move toward a faster
release cycle and begin moving away from milestone releases in favor of staging. This will
set the stage for the release method we will need.
#2. Staging is easy, I've modified the release script to include staging and with the
script, it is a simple matter of about 5 clicks on nexus to "login", "close
repository", "release repository".
#3. Staging is safe, the RM need not worry about fat fingers breaking the release, all it
costs is time.
#4. The release process should be as close to the same as possible for milestone and
RC/final releases. This simplifies scripting of the process, decreases the amount the RM
must remember and makes every milestone release a rehearsal.
#5. Everybody else is doing it (is that even a reason?!)
Mandatory?
I would rather impress the RM with how easy and helpful staging can be than bind him with
rules.
If I had followed the existing process to the letter, I would not have had any experience
with staging to begin with.
In the interest of continuous improvement I would like to make this a strong
recommendation, not a strict rule.
Here's my +1
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs