IMO, the investment for stabilization would greatly speed-up future innovations and experiments (if we manage to fix all the major/critical issues by the end of that phase). Everyone could face way less blocking issues and need way less hacks to get things work or grab experimental results:-)
Best, Yingyi On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: > My main goal it to get the number of painful issues down and I agree that > that doesn’t require that everything else stops. However, I think that it > is likely take some toll on innovation as some time would be spent on > fixing issues and merging fixes into the feature branches .. > > > On 19 Nov 2015, at 12:18, Mike Carey wrote: > > +1 --- but --- to be clear, I don't think this is proposing an >> every-hand-stops-innovating phase. I think the proposal is for a mode >> where MASTER is locked down and all folks do try and fix their higher >> priority bugs on a weekly basis - but that folks who're working on separate >> things (e.g., spatial index performance or BAD approaches to data handling) >> would still do that, just not in master (which isn't where it's happening >> anyway). Master would be closed for business until all "Major" and above >> bugs are indeed fixed. (Because that's where we'll cut release branches >> from, and that needs to be stabilized.) @Till, is that a correct >> understanding? Thoughts? >> >> On 11/19/15 10:49 AM, Ian Maxon wrote: >> >>> +1. Our tests need a lot of work, so putting new features on the back >>> burner will definitely help with getting that work done. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:43 AM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ++1 >>>> >>>> Amoudi, Abdullah. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Yingyi >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> there are a number of discussions (on and off list) and other >>>>>> indicators >>>>>> (people on the users list not getting ahead) that we have a relatively >>>>>> >>>>> big >>>>> >>>>>> number of issues that affect both the usability (and adoption) of the >>>>>> system and the productivity of development. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that it would be good to move into a stabilization phase for a >>>>>> while. In such a phase we would focus on addressing known issues and >>>>>> only >>>>>> add new features to master is there is broad agreement (on this list) >>>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>> the feature is an exception. The goal of the phase would be to address >>>>>> >>>>> all >>>>> >>>>>> issues of priority “Major” and above (with the option of agreeing on >>>>>> de-prioritizing issues …) and to increase test coverage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? Concerns? Questions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Till >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. I think that the 0.8.8 release should not be affected by entering >>>>>> such a phase. >>>>>> >>>>>>
