Chris, Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we could be better.
Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find some good discussions on this topic. Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Anil, > > Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question is do > we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be just two roles > on this project, committers and contributors. > Who is responsible for the following areas for each release: > > - migration from old to new releases > - patch management > - dependency management > - quality management > - documentation > - etc.. > > I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who would be > willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). > > The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products are much > better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have a much stronger > release management process. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Anil Patel wrote: >> I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its >> matter of locating it. >> >> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>> It is ironic. >>> Ruth >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many >>>> areas >>>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) >>>> EXCEPT release management. >>>> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. >>>>> Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just >>>>> my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. >>>>> These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz >>>>> (I hope...): >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the >>>>>> past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in >>>>>> OFBiz. >>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, >>>>>> that is our latest release branch: >>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>> >>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using >>>>> what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have >>>>> already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have >>>>> not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more >>>>> clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just >>>>> speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>>> >>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has >>>>>> been created around it from the community of users and interested >>>>>> parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the >>>>>> trunk >>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code >>>>>> improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>> >>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not >>>>> true? >>>>> >>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>> >>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are >>>>> applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>> >>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will >>>>>> not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz >>>>>> community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel >>>>>> represented by a new release >>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing >>>>>> improving if they just get the releases >>>>>> >>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people >>>>> evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently >>>>> wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging >>>>> it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of >>>>> OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had >>>>> download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet >>>>> real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new >>>>> release will be project committers. >>>>> >>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather >>>>>> than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day >>>>>> someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new >>>>>> one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively >>>>> trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>>> >>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>> >>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a >>>>> different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases >>>>> "maintained". >>>>> >>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of >>>>>> the trunk >>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>> >>>>> True. Very true. >>>>> >>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, >>>>>> peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older >>>>>> releases >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if >>>>> appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>> >>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a >>>>>> release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is >>>>>> no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our >>>>>> releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we >>>>>> can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 >>>>>> weeks before the release date >>>>>> >>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. >>>>> Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade >>>>> instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more >>>>> than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in >>>>> advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release >>>>> meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 >>>>> months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>>> >>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, >>>>>> that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly >>>>> trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>> >>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the >>>>>> code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is >>>>>> a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, >>>>>> even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we >>>>>> are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we >>>>>> suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" >>>>>> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and >>>>> stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these >>>>> "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent >>>>> them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start >>>>> pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
