Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
Dear all, 2015-10-25 19:37 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler: >> I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it >> seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is >> a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs. > > I agree on this since each RC takes hours of work (check, package, > upload, write and email announcements, updated many CMS Web pages, > chase packagers etc etc). what about following GDAL "approach"? Release manager usually writes to ML "do you agree that upcoming RCX will be released as final?". If no objection appears within few days, than the new version is released. In RFC4 we should require RC1 at least. So first candidate for final release would be upcoming RC2. Martin -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Anna Petrášováwrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Martin Landa ... >> I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release >> manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be >> so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped >> if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more >> steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra >> complicated release. >> >> Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin > > > I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it > seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is > a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs. I agree on this since each RC takes hours of work (check, package, upload, write and email announcements, updated many CMS Web pages, chase packagers etc etc). Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On 20/10/15 09:18, Martin Landa wrote: 2015-10-20 9:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa: Great, so I'll make a motion on this in the next days unless any objection pops up before. it seems that there are no objections :-) Martin reading it again, I would say that in some cases upcoming RC2 could be released as final. Eg. for upcoming 7.0.2 we have RC1 released. In two weeks should become RC2, in this case I can image to release final instead of RC2. So alternative roadmap could be: Step 3 (X+30 days) - Hard freeze & RC1 Step 4 - Bug squashing Step 5 (X+44 days) - Final. In other words I would make RC2 as optional step only we will need it. It can happen that two RCs could be overkill. What do you think? The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many people test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more prominent and can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This does not mean that RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last chance to spot any serious issues. So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that much, or ? Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
Hi Markus, 2015-03-04 20:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler: [...] > Great, so I'll make a motion on this in the next days unless any > objection pops up before. it seems that there are no objections :-) Martin -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Martin Landawrote: > Hi, > > 2015-10-20 9:36 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert : > > > The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some > > fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many > people > > test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more prominent > and > > can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This does not mean > that > > RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last chance to spot any > > serious issues. > > > > So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that > much, > > or ? > > I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release > manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be > so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped > if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more > steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra > complicated release. > > Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin > I agree with Martin, I guess it's quite a bit of work involved in it and it seems we now started to release more often than in previous years, which is a good trend. So I would rather release more often with less RCs. Anna > > -- > Martin Landa > http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa > http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa > ___ > grass-dev mailing list > grass-...@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev > ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
Hi, 2015-10-20 9:36 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert: > The idea of the RC2 was to provoke some more last-minute testing as some > fixes might have been introduced after RC1 and I'm not sure how many people > test the release branch between RC's. This way we make it more prominent and > can send out a call to everyone to please test RC2. This does not mean that > RC2 cannot be identical to final. It's just a last chance to spot any > serious issues. > > So, I would plead for leaving it in. 5 days more or less is not that much, > or ? I understand the point, on the other hand it's extra work for release manager and packager which would sometimes make sense to avoid and be so not strict in the way that RC2 step could be optional (or skipped if no objection from community). On the other hand we can add more steps (RC3, RC4, ...) if it will be necessary in the case of extra complicated release. Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On 04/03/15 09:19, Martin Landa wrote: Hi, 2015-03-03 9:31 GMT+01:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be: A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final release. make sense to me, Martin Ok, I've added the change. In any case we are a small enough team to handle things flexibly if needed. For me, the idea of elaborating a release procedure is mostly to make the process more explicit and thus ease communication, not to hammer laws into stone Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 04/03/15 09:19, Martin Landa wrote: Hi, 2015-03-03 9:31 GMT+01:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be: A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final release. make sense to me, Martin Ok, I've added the change. In any case we are a small enough team to handle things flexibly if needed. For me, the idea of elaborating a release procedure is mostly to make the process more explicit and thus ease communication, not to hammer laws into stone Great, so I'll make a motion on this in the next days unless any objection pops up before. Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release. (just a low priority comment here) While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short. And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not or depends. Overall, we got the release out :-) Any opinions on above remaining issue? I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one week limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to step 6 such as A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final release. Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
I agree. Michael C. Michael Barton Director, Center for Social Dynamics Complexity Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution Social Change Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science Arizona State University voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC) fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC) www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu On Mar 3, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: I agree with the suggested modification by Moritz, Helena Helena Mitasova Professor at the Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences and Center for Geospatial Analytics North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8208 hmit...@ncsu.edu http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/ All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote: On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release. (just a low priority comment here) While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short. And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not or depends. Overall, we got the release out :-) Any opinions on above remaining issue? I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one week limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to step 6 such as A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final release. Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
I agree with the suggested modification by Moritz, Helena Helena Mitasova Professor at the Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences and Center for Geospatial Analytics North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8208 hmit...@ncsu.edu http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/ All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote: On 01/03/15 19:02, Markus Neteler wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release. (just a low priority comment here) While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short. And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not or depends. Overall, we got the release out :-) Any opinions on above remaining issue? I think that with time we will get better at this procedure and the one week limit should be ok, but I have no objections to add a phrase to step 6 such as A final, concerted bug squashing effort by all developers of no more than one week. During that same time the release announcement is drafted. If an important bug is discovered for which a fix needs some more testing, an RC3 can exceptionally be published, with another week of testing before final release. Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release. (just a low priority comment here) While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short. And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to [add] a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not or depends. Overall, we got the release out :-) Any opinions on above remaining issue? Overall, RFC4 looks pretty reasonable to me. Let's vote soon (once above issue is added to RFC4). Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: Agreed, and I like Markus’ idea of testing it on an upcoming release. (just a low priority comment here) While doing so it turns out that one week between RC2 and final is a bit short. And some urgent fixes came in only during the RC procedure. We need to as a phrase if this requires a new RC (not this time though!) or not or depends. Overall, RFC4 looks pretty reasonable to me. Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC 4: Release procedure
Hi, 2014-06-11 11:30 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be: Recent discussion have convinced me that we might need a more clearly defined release procedure for the GRASS project in order to make release more fluid and less conflictual. thanks for your effort. I very rapidly drafted a RFC for that: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure It's a very early draft and discussions and modifications are more than welcome. AT first look, draft looks reasonable. More comments later. Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc