On 05/22/2012 04:55 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.
What do you mean by "moving away from milestone releases in favor of
staging"?
#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 as well.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/