22 May
2012
22 May
'12
10:52 a.m.
On May 22, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
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).
+1
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.
+1 with the proviso that we need to take that into account when we publish release dates.
When we say that 4.1RC1 will be released on 11th of June, I guess it means we need to
release RC1 on 11th - 72 hours then?
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
+1
Thanks
-Vincent