Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On 01/08/2016 12:24 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:33:01AM -0800, José Matos wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 06:56:12 PM Scott Kostyshak wrote: >>> Yes file format freeze is before RC. Feature freeze will be before beta. >>> For discussion see: >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20151022164521.GA4654%40cotopaxi >>> .att.net >>> >>> Scott >> Hi Scott, >> apologies for not answering before. >> >> Regarding the file format freeze I suggest it to be the release time. There >> is >> no gain from requiring the file format to be frozen after the rc stage, and >> if >> some change goes after rc that is because it was considered important enough >> to warrant a nod from you. >> >> So I am suggesting that if some important fix, that involves a file format >> change, is considered for inclusion after the first release candidate it >> should still go on. Again I reiterate that this is for something that >> yourself >> regard as important. >> >> Another important criteria is that lyx2lyx code will be back-ported to lyx >> 2.1.x (x==5 ?) just after 2.2.0 release so any rc-stage change to the file >> format will not affect this. >> >> I have fought this battle before... :-) >> >> In the best case this is an academic discussion and no file format change >> will >> be necessary. :-) >> -- >> José Abílio > Hi José, > > Thanks for bringing this topic up. I am new as a release manager and > also relatively new to LyX development so my ears are open. I agree with > your reasoning and will be open to a file format change after RC if it > fixes an important bug and if other developers agree. yes, I think that is a sensible approach. rh
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:33:01AM -0800, José Matos wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 06:56:12 PM Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > Yes file format freeze is before RC. Feature freeze will be before beta. > > For discussion see: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20151022164521.GA4654%40cotopaxi > > .att.net > > > > Scott > > Hi Scott, > apologies for not answering before. > > Regarding the file format freeze I suggest it to be the release time. There > is > no gain from requiring the file format to be frozen after the rc stage, and > if > some change goes after rc that is because it was considered important enough > to warrant a nod from you. > > So I am suggesting that if some important fix, that involves a file format > change, is considered for inclusion after the first release candidate it > should still go on. Again I reiterate that this is for something that > yourself > regard as important. > > Another important criteria is that lyx2lyx code will be back-ported to lyx > 2.1.x (x==5 ?) just after 2.2.0 release so any rc-stage change to the file > format will not affect this. > > I have fought this battle before... :-) > > In the best case this is an academic discussion and no file format change > will > be necessary. :-) > -- > José Abílio Hi José, Thanks for bringing this topic up. I am new as a release manager and also relatively new to LyX development so my ears are open. I agree with your reasoning and will be open to a file format change after RC if it fixes an important bug and if other developers agree. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 06:56:12 PM Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Yes file format freeze is before RC. Feature freeze will be before beta. > For discussion see: > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20151022164521.GA4654%40cotopaxi > .att.net > > Scott Hi Scott, apologies for not answering before. Regarding the file format freeze I suggest it to be the release time. There is no gain from requiring the file format to be frozen after the rc stage, and if some change goes after rc that is because it was considered important enough to warrant a nod from you. So I am suggesting that if some important fix, that involves a file format change, is considered for inclusion after the first release candidate it should still go on. Again I reiterate that this is for something that yourself regard as important. Another important criteria is that lyx2lyx code will be back-ported to lyx 2.1.x (x==5 ?) just after 2.2.0 release so any rc-stage change to the file format will not affect this. I have fought this battle before... :-) In the best case this is an academic discussion and no file format change will be necessary. :-) -- José Abílio
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 05/12/2015 21:41, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:26:35PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote: is it possible to implement the format change (which I feel is stable now) for 2.2.0 and implement the polished visible changes in 2.2.1 or 2.2.2? I am fine with this but I'd like to get a +1 from someone else. Have we done this in the past? It seems like a great strategy to me. Ok, since everyone agrees that this is a good idea, let's just do the format change for now. I don't have much time currently and it's better to not do things in a rush. I'll post a patch to the list soon (when I have more time). Guillaume
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On 12/05/2015 04:41 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:26:35PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote: >> is it >> > possible to implement the format change (which I feel is stable now) for >> 2.2.0 and implement the polished visible changes in 2.2.1 or 2.2.2? > > I am fine with this but I'd like to get a +1 from someone else. Have we > done this in the past? It seems like a great strategy to me. Yes, I have done this before myself. > I think at this point it makes sense to wait until Uwe is back to do a > beta > release. Uwe is away until January 6. How about we release beta1 on > January 8? That sounds reasonable to me. Richard
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 05/12/15 22:41, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : is it possible to implement the format change (which I feel is stable now) for 2.2.0 and implement the polished visible changes in 2.2.1 or 2.2.2? I am fine with this but I'd like to get a +1 from someone else. Have we done this in the past? It seems like a great strategy to me. That looks like a good idea. I propose the following: feature freeze: December 22 string freeze: December 22 beta release: January 8 Accordingly, on December 22, I would send an email to translators. Sure. JMarc
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:26:35PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 30/11/2015 10:59, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >Uwe will be away in two weeks. The last day he will be able to build an > >installer is December 11, which to me means we should plan on the last > >day being December 10, just in case there is a problem. He will be back > >on January 6. > > > >Should we aim then for a beta on December 10? This seems too quick to > >me, but I'm fine to proceed if this is what others want. > > > >Scott > > > > > Well everybody knows that time freezes for two weeks at the end of > December for most people here anyway so it's not a real delay. I am > happy to have an accelerated release schedule (I have nothing absolutely > necessary to implement before that) but I had made mental plans > according to what was announced initially. > > I have an implementation of http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7790 (which I > mentioned among the things that I would like to finish for 2.2.0 when > Scott asked about it). I might have a polished version soon, though > certainly not before Dec 10th. OK. > I am not worried about having this between alpha and beta because I can > do at first a set of changes that are innocuous. In case I do not have > time (for instance if you want to accelerate the schedule) > is it > possible to implement the format change (which I feel is stable now) for > 2.2.0 and implement the polished visible changes in 2.2.1 or 2.2.2? I am fine with this but I'd like to get a +1 from someone else. Have we done this in the past? It seems like a great strategy to me. I think at this point it makes sense to wait until Uwe is back to do a beta release. Uwe is away until January 6. How about we release beta1 on January 8? Uwe, from what I understand, you update the docs after beta is released, right? Is there anything you need to do before beta is released other than just build the installer? It would be nice for you to practice building with Qt 5.5.1 before you leave to see if any issues come up. It seems you already did this, right? http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/2277#comment:35 Did it go smoothly? I propose the following: feature freeze: December 22 string freeze: December 22 beta release: January 8 Accordingly, on December 22, I would send an email to translators. Thoughts? Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 30/11/2015 10:59, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:44:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 29/11/2015 16:39, Richard Heck a écrit : I'd suggest beta in two weeks if we don't run into any serious problems, then see how that goes. If well, then we can shoot for RC in mid-January. This looks good to me. Uwe will be away in two weeks. The last day he will be able to build an installer is December 11, which to me means we should plan on the last day being December 10, just in case there is a problem. He will be back on January 6. Should we aim then for a beta on December 10? This seems too quick to me, but I'm fine to proceed if this is what others want. Scott Well everybody knows that time freezes for two weeks at the end of December for most people here anyway so it's not a real delay. I am happy to have an accelerated release schedule (I have nothing absolutely necessary to implement before that) but I had made mental plans according to what was announced initially. I have an implementation of http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7790 (which I mentioned among the things that I would like to finish for 2.2.0 when Scott asked about it). I might have a polished version soon, though certainly not before Dec 10th. I am not worried about having this between alpha and beta because I can do at first a set of changes that are innocuous. In case I do not have time (for instance if you want to accelerate the schedule) is it possible to implement the format change (which I feel is stable now) for 2.2.0 and implement the polished visible changes in 2.2.1 or 2.2.2?
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:44:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 29/11/2015 16:39, Richard Heck a écrit : > >I'd suggest beta in two weeks if we don't run into any serious problems, > >then see how that goes. If well, then we can shoot for RC in mid-January. > > This looks good to me. Uwe will be away in two weeks. The last day he will be able to build an installer is December 11, which to me means we should plan on the last day being December 10, just in case there is a problem. He will be back on January 6. Should we aim then for a beta on December 10? This seems too quick to me, but I'm fine to proceed if this is what others want. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 29/11/2015 16:39, Richard Heck a écrit : I'd suggest beta in two weeks if we don't run into any serious problems, then see how that goes. If well, then we can shoot for RC in mid-January. This looks good to me. JMarc
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On 11/29/2015 01:26 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:13:46PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:49:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> >>> Le 11 novembre 2015 19:10:05 GMT+01:00, Scott Kostyshak >>> a écrit : What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? >>> All of them ? :) >>> >>> Seriously, we'll see what happens. We should go as fast as possible but not >>> more. >> Does anyone have updated thoughts on the rest of the release schedule? >> >> Hopefully another alpha release will not be needed. If that is the case >> how about the following schedule? >> >> beta: end of December >> RC: beginning of February >> final: end of February > An alternative would be to do a beta soon and the RC in January. > This would have the disadvantage of not getting much feedback from > alpha2 testers, but would have the advantage of shortening the final > release a bit and lengthening the beta testing period a bit (which is > nice because we will probably get more testers for beta). I'd suggest beta in two weeks if we don't run into any serious problems, then see how that goes. If well, then we can shoot for RC in mid-January. Richard
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:13:46PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:49:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > > > > Le 11 novembre 2015 19:10:05 GMT+01:00, Scott Kostyshak > > a écrit : > > >What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? > > > > All of them ? :) > > > > Seriously, we'll see what happens. We should go as fast as possible but not > > more. > > Does anyone have updated thoughts on the rest of the release schedule? > > Hopefully another alpha release will not be needed. If that is the case > how about the following schedule? > > beta: end of December > RC: beginning of February > final: end of February An alternative would be to do a beta soon and the RC in January. This would have the disadvantage of not getting much feedback from alpha2 testers, but would have the advantage of shortening the final release a bit and lengthening the beta testing period a bit (which is nice because we will probably get more testers for beta). Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:49:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > Le 11 novembre 2015 19:10:05 GMT+01:00, Scott Kostyshak a > écrit : > >What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? > > All of them ? :) > > Seriously, we'll see what happens. We should go as fast as possible but not > more. Does anyone have updated thoughts on the rest of the release schedule? Hopefully another alpha release will not be needed. If that is the case how about the following schedule? beta: end of December RC: beginning of February final: end of February Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:04:42PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > I agree with JMarc that we could be flexible WRT shortcuting the dates in > > case things look good, but I also know that all plans we ever had for our > > releases were delayed. Let's see :) > > Yes, the plans get always delayed. Therefore I'd like a schedule with about > 3 weeks between the different stages (shorter does not make sense). > Depending on the alpha feedback we could also skip the beta, but lets see > how well it works. OK sounds good. Since no one was in favor of skipping alpha to go to beta, I will proceed with the original plan for alpha and we will adjust the rest of the schedule after some feedback on alpha. > In any case it is important to be quite conservative regarding changes after > alpha, otherwise we throw away a good part of the testing effort. I am gaining an understanding and appreciation for this point that I did not have before. Scott
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Pavel Sanda wrote: > I agree with JMarc that we could be flexible WRT shortcuting the dates in > case things look good, but I also know that all plans we ever had for our > releases were delayed. Let's see :) Yes, the plans get always delayed. Therefore I'd like a schedule with about 3 weeks between the different stages (shorter does not make sense). Depending on the alpha feedback we could also skip the beta, but lets see how well it works. In any case it is important to be quite conservative regarding changes after alpha, otherwise we throw away a good part of the testing effort. Georg
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Liviu Andronic wrote: >> no major crashes. Unless we have major issues that need addressed and >> fixed prior to this major release, I think the general hope around is >> that we get an RC and even the actual release by the end of the year, >> or perhaps very early next year. > > I do not think that 1.5 months provide enough time frame even to discover > problematic bugs. > Yeah, my memories were (very) optimistic concerning past releases... Should have checked first. Liviu > I agree with JMarc that we could be flexible WRT shortcuting the dates in case > things look good, but I also know that all plans we ever had for our > releases were delayed. Let's see :) > > Pavel -- Do you think you know what math is? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/ian-stewart-2013-08-02 Or what it means to be intelligent? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-duncan-2013-08-30 Think again: http://www.ideasroadshow.com/library
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Liviu Andronic wrote: > no major crashes. Unless we have major issues that need addressed and > fixed prior to this major release, I think the general hope around is > that we get an RC and even the actual release by the end of the year, > or perhaps very early next year. I do not think that 1.5 months provide enough time frame even to discover problematic bugs. I agree with JMarc that we could be flexible WRT shortcuting the dates in case things look good, but I also know that all plans we ever had for our releases were delayed. Let's see :) Pavel
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:03:19PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 11/11/2015 08:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule > >is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the > >state of our master branch is already relatively stable. > > > >alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday > >beta: beginning of January > >RC: end of March > >final: end of April > > > > > File format freeze would be before RC, right? Yes file format freeze is before RC. Feature freeze will be before beta. For discussion see: https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20151022164521.GA4654%40cotopaxi.att.net Scott
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:01:40AM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> Le 11/11/2015 09:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >> >Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule > >> >is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the > >> >state of our master branch is already relatively stable. > >> > > >> >alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday > >> >beta: beginning of January > >> >RC: end of March > >> >final: end of April > >> > >> I would have hoped for a more aggressive schedule, I just hope that we are > >> not bound by it. If this lasts too long, there will be a lot of frustration > >> and pressure for adding more features. So trying to be fast also has value. > > > > What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? > > > I think in the past, without major deal-breaking bugs, the jumps from > one pre-release to another took fewer than 2-3 weeks. And that's when > we were dealing with obscure crashes... Now master is (very) stable, > no major crashes. Unless we have major issues that need addressed and > fixed prior to this major release, I think the general hope around is > that we get an RC and even the actual release by the end of the year, > or perhaps very early next year. The time between 2.1.0beta1 was 9 months. The time between 2.0.0alpha1 and 2.0.0 was 13.5 months. In my proposed schedule I proposed 5.5 months. I thought this was quite aggressive, but if there is enough agreement for making a more aggressive schedule we can discuss a change. Perhaps the concern is that the actual release dates are always later than the scheduled release dates? Would others prefer to shorten the intervals between release stages? Or to skip alpha and just move to beta? Scott
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Le 11/11/2015 09:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : >> >Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule >> >is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the >> >state of our master branch is already relatively stable. >> > >> >alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday >> >beta: beginning of January >> >RC: end of March >> >final: end of April >> >> I would have hoped for a more aggressive schedule, I just hope that we are >> not bound by it. If this lasts too long, there will be a lot of frustration >> and pressure for adding more features. So trying to be fast also has value. > > What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? > I think in the past, without major deal-breaking bugs, the jumps from one pre-release to another took fewer than 2-3 weeks. And that's when we were dealing with obscure crashes... Now master is (very) stable, no major crashes. Unless we have major issues that need addressed and fixed prior to this major release, I think the general hope around is that we get an RC and even the actual release by the end of the year, or perhaps very early next year. Liviu > Scott -- Do you think you know what math is? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/ian-stewart-2013-08-02 Or what it means to be intelligent? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-duncan-2013-08-30 Think again: http://www.ideasroadshow.com/library
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 11 novembre 2015 19:10:05 GMT+01:00, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : >What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? All of them ? :) Seriously, we'll see what happens. We should go as fast as possible but not more. JMarc
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 11/11/2015 09:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule > >is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the > >state of our master branch is already relatively stable. > > > >alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday > >beta: beginning of January > >RC: end of March > >final: end of April > > I would have hoped for a more aggressive schedule, I just hope that we are > not bound by it. If this lasts too long, there will be a lot of frustration > and pressure for adding more features. So trying to be fast also has value. What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? Scott
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 11/11/2015 09:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the state of our master branch is already relatively stable. alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday beta: beginning of January RC: end of March final: end of April I would have hoped for a more aggressive schedule, I just hope that we are not bound by it. If this lasts too long, there will be a lot of frustration and pressure for adding more features. So trying to be fast also has value. Anyway, we will have a better idea after alpha, I guess. JMarc
Re: Tentative schedule for 2.2.0 release
Le 11/11/2015 08:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the state of our master branch is already relatively stable. alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday beta: beginning of January RC: end of March final: end of April File format freeze would be before RC, right?
