Re: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Change the way we do releases to include staging.

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 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: > >> 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