Hi,
So this way we avoid the current awkward manual test strategy of testing
*after* the release is made and, instead, we get to test in the staging
process *before* the release is actually made, right?
+1
Thanks,
Eduard
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Caleb James DeLisle <
calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com> 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).
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