9 Jun
2012
9 Jun
'12
8:31 p.m.
On 06/09/2012 12:28 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:07 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
+1 also I think changing the rules in the middle of a release misrepresents the
seriousness of the project.
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.
The purpose of the RC releases was as a kind of staging, without actually using real
staging. So I'd say that for the next releases we should only have milestones, and
staged final releases.
However, for 4.1 we should keep the rc-1 release in the plan, since our staging process
is new and not thoroughly tested yet.
The way I simulated "staging releases" when I had the RM hat was to leave a
window between uploading the artifacts in our maven repository and pushing them further,
and in this window I did quick smoke tests to see that everything works (with the help of
Sorin and the rest of the QA team at XWiki SAS).
So, I propose this as the strategy for our next releases:
- Each release goes to a staging repository first
+1
- Milestone releases spend a little time in staging,
enough for a few quick smoke tests; depending on the time of day, this could last from an
hour to at most a day
+1
- There are no RC releases, there are only RC staging
repositories. Currently the staging repositories have random names, but the RM should
rename each repository with the proper RC name: 4.2-rc-1, 4.2-rc-2 if the first build was
busted, and so on. The version written inside the packages is the final one, like 4.2,
without a rc-x suffix. While in staging, a RC release goes through more intensive tests,
including smoke testing, the full MTR, and developers that contributed to the release
should
test their committed features. Maybe even a Jenkins job could be executed for that
release, with all the automated tests.
+1
Timing? Since we don't know how many times we have to stage releases, I'd say
that we can start building RCs one week before the planned final release date, and if bugs
are found, a new RC is build the next day (to let issues accumulate), hoping that there
will be a stable successful build before the final release date, without a 72h mandatory
waiting period.
+1
Since this has become a bit of a brainstorming session I think it makes sense to have
another official vote.
Thanks,
Caleb
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