+1 here too - I'm all for more frequent releases - not sure how much time I can put behind that release to release, but I'm all for the idea of it.
- Mark On 9/9/10 5:54 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: > +1 to simplify the release process / ReleaseTodo wiki, and +1 to > release a 3.1, and +1 to do frequent stable releases. > > Having a stable branch gives us that freedom and we should use it! > > Mike > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I would like to open a discussion about release frequency from lucene/solr's >> 3x branch. I'm not asking for votes or anything, just ideas. >> >> For Lucene/Solr its been a pretty long time since the users got a feature >> release. >> I don't consider Lucene 3.0 as a feature release either. >> >> I think now that we have a "trunk" for unstable development, and a "3x" >> stable branch, that we should think about cutting releases from this branch >> much more often, for example every month or two. >> >> I think that by doing this, we will engage the community more: because many >> people won't run svn checkouts/snapshots, and many people probably wont even >> look at unreleased code. >> >> In the past it seems releases were fairly infrequent, and I'm not sure I >> have the background to really understand why, but i have 3 theories: >> * concerns about the actual code being stable >> * the release process is too complicated >> * getting someone to do the work >> >> For stability, my argument is that our "3x" stable branch is inherently more >> stable than previous trunks were, so its safe to release more often from it. >> I give some very rough, very unscientific numbers below from Lucene's JIRA, >> but I think the same applies to Solr. >> >> Based on the last 4 weeks of development (resolved issues): >> >> Of bugfixes, about half (6) are fixes to bugs that already existed in >> 2.9/3.0 >> About 25% (3) are fixes to bugs we only introduced in trunk, and do not >> affect 3x. >> The other 25% (4) are fixes to things we introduced in trunk/3x >> >> You could say this suggests 3x is very roughly "twice" as stable as trunk, >> yet has about 80% of the new features/improvements (14 out of 17). >> >> With regards to the release process: I also think if we decide to do this, >> we must simplify and automate our release procedures. >> To be frank, http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo scares the crap >> out of me, and something like 'ant release' that someone can run from the >> top level for both Lucene and Solr would really go a long way towards making >> the release process less painful. I realize this is difficult and cannot be >> fully automated but I think it can be improved. >> >> Finally, as far as getting someone to do the work, I can certainly volunteer >> to help in the following ways: >> * being RM if you are ok with a non-maven release (until LUCENE-2268 is >> fixed, i am uncomfortable with maven) >> * improving the build to simplify the release process: (see SOLR-2002 for a >> start) >> >> -- >> Robert Muir >> rcm...@gmail.com >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
