Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp <j...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> >> Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >>>> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >>>>> Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of >>>> an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. >>>>> >>>>> 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a >>>> "Release Candidate"? >>>>> >>>>> 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a >>>> developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say >>>> casually, "We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate"? >>>> >>>> To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular >>>> build as a "Release Candidate". That interpretation would explain >>>> some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really >>>> works. >>>> >>>> What actually happens is two things: >>>> >>>> 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is >>>> the Release Candidate. >>>> >>>> 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. >>>> >>>> >>>> When we say "vote on a Release Candidate", some readers might think >>>> that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really >>>> voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for >>>> candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. >>>> I'm voting to make him President. >>>> >>> >>> A further point of clarification. Does "Release Candidate" in the ASF have >>> the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate >>> >>> Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the "final" test before >>> the actual "release". >>> >>> So, to me, and perhaps others, a "release candidate" is NOT the same as a >>> release. And, to me, a "release candidate" as opposed to a "release" >>> implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL >>> testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. >>> >>> I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the >>> ASF. >>> >>> I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- "What it >>> means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF" -- or something similar so >>> folks have a better understanding of "release candidates"/"release" at the >>> ASF. >> >> I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this >> project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. >> >> The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) >> presents (after voting) the Incubator project a "candidate to be >> released". Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be >> officially released or not. >> > > The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for > release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring > that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on > whether the release can actually occur. > > But this is not why we call it a "candidate". Even once we graduate > to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would > still call this stage a Release Candidate. > > I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I > learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major > code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are > minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no > coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then > you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release > we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing > effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow > and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. > > The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of > copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work > was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, > and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent > weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language > translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to > concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't > mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that > has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of > their time. > >> So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial >> snapshots. >> > > Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any > bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on > this. However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed > approach to QA, and make optimal use of volunteer time, and use this > effort in a way that best improves product quality, then we want to be > testing much earlier in the project cycle. That is why Lily sent > several notes to the list, months ago, asking for help testing AOO dev > snapshots. I don't think anyone offered to help, despite these > several requests :-(
Just to make one thing clear upfront: I didn't want to criticize the old or the new process of testing and releasing. As many people seemed to be confused about the naming, I tried to explain - and failed. I'll try again and maybe fail again. I think the confusion comes from the different process in the old project. The old process, as I see it (some other people might know better) was somewhat tiered: The source in the version control system was only touched by some core developers. From time to time a developer snapshot was made available for people not able or willing to build from source. But these dev-snapshots were largely used by people with high affinity to the project and/or technical understanding. I think some mirrors did not distribute dev-snapshots. "Internal" QA was done perpetually. Then Beta-Releases and Release Candidates were announced and published to a bigger community including users with less or no "technical" understanding to test and report. And so I think some people are waiting for the announcement of a "Release Candidate" published through the mirror system for final testing through the greater community. And I just wanted to say that the procedure has changed and I think a Release Candidate in the above sense would not come. Anybody feel free to correct me. > > -Rob > >> Is this correct? >> >> Christoph >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -Rob >>>> >>>>> - Dennis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Michael Acevedo [mailto:vea1...@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:36 >>>>> To: Apache OpenOffice >>>>> Subject: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released? >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I was wondering if the AOO 3.4 Release Candidate is now available for >>>>> download? I see an entry in the Wiki that says so. >>>>> >>>>> Many Thanks >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best, >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >
