Re: [Geoserver-devel] [Geotools-devel] Discussing a switch to a time boxed release model
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > > > I am not sure we need a full blown proposal for the automation stuff, but > i guess it can't hurt, if anything it will help specify what the > imports/outputs are. In my head the idea is to have a new job that takes a > revision and a README description and basically that would be it. A bunch > of core artifacts would spit out the opposite end. > > Taking it further will be automating the osx and win installers jobs, for > which we have machines that would be suitable for this already. > > I am happy to script it out, if i find i can't do it in a reasonable > amount of time I will try to find some help. I actually would like to store > all of our build scripts from hudson in version control anyways so anyone > can hack on them easily, this seems like a good time to do that. > Yep, that sounds cool. Let me know how I can help. I also agree I don't see the need for a full blown GSIP, maybe better to use the time to hash out the scripts. The time boxed model instead really needs a management comitee vote, thus we'll really need to make a proposal for it. Cheers Andrea -- Ing. Andrea Aime GeoSolutions S.A.S. Tech lead Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 962313 mob:+39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime http://twitter.com/geowolf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Re: [Geoserver-devel] [Geotools-devel] Discussing a switch to a time boxed release model
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Chris Holmes wrote: > >> +1 on all this. >> >> Perhaps two GSIP's should come out of this? One for the release model >> / schedule. And then another for automation improvements? Or perhaps >> we don't need a GSIP for that, but should get a jira and a plan of >> attack for it. >> > > The proposed model is quite "release happy", so if we don't have the > automation > it's not going to be feasible. > We can have two GSIPs, first the automation one, once it's there we > can do the release schedule one? > > I can help for the automation one too (within the limits of what > can be done without direct access to the build server, that is). > I am not sure we need a full blown proposal for the automation stuff, but i guess it can't hurt, if anything it will help specify what the imports/outputs are. In my head the idea is to have a new job that takes a revision and a README description and basically that would be it. A bunch of core artifacts would spit out the opposite end. Taking it further will be automating the osx and win installers jobs, for which we have machines that would be suitable for this already. I am happy to script it out, if i find i can't do it in a reasonable amount of time I will try to find some help. I actually would like to store all of our build scripts from hudson in version control anyways so anyone can hack on them easily, this seems like a good time to do that. > Cheers > Andrea > > > -- > Ing. Andrea Aime > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Tech lead > > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 962313 > mob:+39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ > http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT > http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime > http://twitter.com/geowolf > > > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Re: [Geoserver-devel] [Geotools-devel] Discussing a switch to a time boxed release model
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Chris Holmes wrote: > +1 on all this. > > Perhaps two GSIP's should come out of this? One for the release model > / schedule. And then another for automation improvements? Or perhaps > we don't need a GSIP for that, but should get a jira and a plan of > attack for it. > The proposed model is quite "release happy", so if we don't have the automation it's not going to be feasible. We can have two GSIPs, first the automation one, once it's there we can do the release schedule one? I can help for the automation one too (within the limits of what can be done without direct access to the build server, that is). Cheers Andrea -- Ing. Andrea Aime GeoSolutions S.A.S. Tech lead Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 962313 mob:+39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime http://twitter.com/geowolf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Re: [Geoserver-devel] [Geotools-devel] Discussing a switch to a time boxed release model
+1 on all this. Perhaps two GSIP's should come out of this? One for the release model / schedule. And then another for automation improvements? Or perhaps we don't need a GSIP for that, but should get a jira and a plan of attack for it. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Alessio Fabiani wrote: > Hi all, > I really would like to move forward with this proposal. > > I'm currently having a lot of difficulties to get an idea of a plan on wich > version of GeoServer/GeoTools schedule on my projects, so having a > programmatic release project would be very welcomed and useful. > > High automation also is a great idea, would very very helpful for the > release process which usually takes a lot of time and resources. > > I also volunteer to provide help as much as possible to have all of this > implemented soon. > > Regards, > Alessio. > > --- > Ing. Alessio Fabiani > Founder / CTO GeoSolutions S.A.S. > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > > phone: (+39) 0584 96.23.13 > fax: (+39) 0584 96.23.13 > mobile:(+39) 331 62.33.686 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com > http://www.linkedin.com/in/alessiofabiani > https://twitter.com/alfa7961 > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > --- > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Andrea Aime > wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Justin Deoliveira >> wrote: >>> >>> In general I think it looks great, a few things though. I think given the >>> current effort to put out releases 1 month is probably asking a bit much >>> given the resources we have on the project. So I think to do one month >>> cycles we really do need to better automate our release process with a >>> hudson job that does most of the work. >>> >>> It would also be good to have some better defined (and perhaps stricter) >>> guidelines about what is acceptable to commit given the current phase of an >>> iteration. For instance obviously once we move to a stable or hardening >>> phase GSIP's that drastically alter the core are out of the question. It >>> would be good if we had a more concrete definition of "drastically alter the >>> core". Like should we be strict and say stable/hardening means strictly only >>> bug fixes? With a faster release cycle it could make more sense to have >>> stricter guidelines since if you don't get something into this release there >>> is one not too far off. This is exactly why we ran into the fluerry of gsip >>> issue... with another release 1.5 years away it certainly puts the pressure >>> on to cram stuff in. >>> >>> Anyways, great stuff. I like where this is going, big things from my >>> standpoint. >>> >>> 1. better automation of release, which i am happy to help with >>> 2. better guidelines for what type of development is acceptable during >>> what phases >> >> >> Fully agree on the higher automation (tried to discuss some ideas about it >> in my >> original mail). >> >> About what is acceptable and not, what about the following: >> - stable series: only bug fixes and new features that do not require API >> changes >> or large patches to existing systems (that is, if you are contributing a >> new module >> the patch can be as large as you want, but a "bug fix" that rewrites >> half of WFS >> is not welcomed unless the PSC really really wants such change badly in) >> - trunk: free reign, but large changes still need a GSIP and reviews >> - hardening: no new features, only bug fixing to make sure people >> concentrate on >> that, if you have something new it has to go on trunk for the time being >> >> The above should be, imho, taken more or less as strict rules that the PSC >> should >> try to enforce (the above, or whatever we come up with). >> That said, the PSC should be allowed to decide outside of the above rules >> in case of dire necessity (e.g., something that could threaten or damage >> the >> project severely if not done outside of the rules). >> >> Cheers >> Andrea >> >> -- >> --- >> Ing. Andrea Aime >> GeoSolutions S.A.S. >> Tech lead >> >> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 >> 55054 Massarosa (LU) >> Italy >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 962313 >> mob: +39 339 8844549 >> >> http://www.geo-solutions.it >> http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ >> http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime >> http://twitter.com/geowolf >> >> --- >> >> >> -- >> Live Security Virtual Conference >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions >> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware >> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/ja
Re: [Geoserver-devel] [Geotools-devel] Discussing a switch to a time boxed release model
Hi all, I really would like to move forward with this proposal. I'm currently having a lot of difficulties to get an idea of a plan on wich version of GeoServer/GeoTools schedule on my projects, so having a programmatic release project would be very welcomed and useful. High automation also is a great idea, would very very helpful for the release process which usually takes a lot of time and resources. I also volunteer to provide help as much as possible to have all of this implemented soon. Regards, Alessio. --- Ing. Alessio Fabiani Founder / CTO GeoSolutions S.A.S. GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: (+39) 0584 96.23.13 fax: (+39) 0584 96.23.13 mobile:(+39) 331 62.33.686 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/alessiofabiani https://twitter.com/alfa7961 http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > >> In general I think it looks great, a few things though. I think given the >> current effort to put out releases 1 month is probably asking a bit much >> given the resources we have on the project. So I think to do one month >> cycles we really do need to better automate our release process with a >> hudson job that does most of the work. >> >> It would also be good to have some better defined (and perhaps stricter) >> guidelines about what is acceptable to commit given the current phase of an >> iteration. For instance obviously once we move to a stable or hardening >> phase GSIP's that drastically alter the core are out of the question. It >> would be good if we had a more concrete definition of "drastically alter >> the core". Like should we be strict and say stable/hardening >> means strictly only bug fixes? With a faster release cycle it could make >> more sense to have stricter guidelines since if you don't get something >> into this release there is one not too far off. This is exactly why we ran >> into the fluerry of gsip issue... with another release 1.5 years away it >> certainly puts the pressure on to cram stuff in. >> >> Anyways, great stuff. I like where this is going, big things from my >> standpoint. >> >> 1. better automation of release, which i am happy to help with >> 2. better guidelines for what type of development is acceptable during >> what phases >> > > Fully agree on the higher automation (tried to discuss some ideas about it > in my > original mail). > > About what is acceptable and not, what about the following: > - stable series: only bug fixes and new features that do not require API > changes > or large patches to existing systems (that is, if you are contributing a > new module > the patch can be as large as you want, but a "bug fix" that rewrites > half of WFS > is not welcomed unless the PSC really really wants such change badly in) > - trunk: free reign, but large changes still need a GSIP and reviews > - hardening: no new features, only bug fixing to make sure people > concentrate on > that, if you have something new it has to go on trunk for the time being > > The above should be, imho, taken more or less as strict rules that the PSC > should > try to enforce (the above, or whatever we come up with). > That said, the PSC should be allowed to decide outside of the above rules > in case of dire necessity (e.g., something that could threaten or damage > the > project severely if not done outside of the rules). > > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > --- > Ing. Andrea Aime > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Tech lead > > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 962313 > mob:+39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ > http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT > http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime > http://twitter.com/geowolf > > --- > > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > GeoTools-Devel mailing list > geotools-de...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Di
