Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Manuel Quiñones]

Thanks a lot Jerry and Gonzalo,

2013/9/2 Gonzalo Odiard :
> Yes, you are right about the schedule.
> My comment was based in my perception (can be wrong)
> of the work in the last weeks. Following the pull requests,
> most of the work is related to web, only a few were related to bugs.

They were bugs for web, but I can see your point.  I think we should
not suspend development of sugar-web.  As said before, the code is
quite separated from the rest of Sugar.

> Part of the problem, like other said, is actually
> we don't have images available to provide to people to help
> with the test.

At least we have rpms now.  Thanks.

-- 
.. manuq ..
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Thanks!

Gonzalo

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:03 PM, James Cameron  wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 07:37:17PM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>> We have some rpms that are testable: http://dev.laptop.org/~gonzalo/AU1B/
>> AU1B_4.zip
>
> Thanks, these work fine for me.  I've already been able to raise a
> bug with journal backup.
>
> http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/4616
>
> (Background feature looks fine, multiple journal and device delete
> works fine).
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 07:37:17PM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> We have some rpms that are testable: http://dev.laptop.org/~gonzalo/AU1B/
> AU1B_4.zip

Thanks, these work fine for me.  I've already been able to raise a
bug with journal backup.

http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/4616

(Background feature looks fine, multiple journal and device delete
works fine).

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Yes, you are right about the schedule.
My comment was based in my perception (can be wrong)
of the work in the last weeks. Following the pull requests,
most of the work is related to web, only a few were related to bugs.

Part of the problem, like other said, is actually
we don't have images available to provide to people to help
with the test.

Gonzalo



On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> On 2 September 2013 20:52, Jerry Vonau  wrote:
>>
>> On 2 September 2013 13:38, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>>>
>>> To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't
>>> find a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems
>>> accurate.
>>>
>>> Hard Code Freeze
>>>
>>> This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
>>> risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No source
>>> code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, but
>>> translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, of
>>> course, allowed without asking.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe that freeze should be split into 2 parts, "Hard Code Freeze" on the
>> GUI part that the end-user sees(strings that are translated) might happen
>> now to allow time for the translations to occur before final release.
>
>
> This sounds like feature freeze, which we have done with 0.99.1.
>
>>
>> Some time later a pre-release freeze on all the code to allow time for
>> bugs to be found and fixed before going final.
>
>
> And this sounds like the various other freezes we have done with 0.99.2.
>
> Hard code freeze is a lot more strict, as the name implies code should
> change only if really really necessary. Frequent crashers, completely broken
> functionality etc.
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

A few notes about the rpms Jerry shared:

* While is based on 0.100, have a few patches needed by AU,
we didn't have time to upstream.

* The patches are applied on the rpms, to make clear the separation of
the changes.

* specs and patches are here: https://github.com/godiard/au1b_rpms

We don't have the dependencies to support the web part.
I don't know yet if is possible have all (specially webkit) compiled on F18.

Gonzalo


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Jerry Vonau  wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 19:37 -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>>
>> On 2 September 2013 19:20, James Cameron  wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:09:09PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones
>> wrote:
>> > 2013/9/2 James Cameron :
>> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:36:31PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones
>> wrote:
>> > >> I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and
>> hope that by
>> > >> that time we get some testing and bugfixing.
>> > >
>> > > How can I test on an XO?
>> >
>> > That's the question, James.  We don't have images this
>> time.  In
>> > previous releases, we had many periodic builds for testing.
>>  So this
>> > is something we need to solve as a community.  I hope that
>> the AU
>> > deploy could make one soon so we can all test.
>>
>>
>> Is this new release of Sugar so different it can't even be
>> retrofitted
>> onto OLPC OS 13.2.0?  Can we back out those changes only, so
>> that the
>> rest of the changes can be tested?
>>
>>
>>
>> We have some rpms that are testable:
>> http://dev.laptop.org/~gonzalo/AU1B/AU1B_4.zip
>>
>>
>> Instalation:
>> * Install the olpc 13.2.0 image
>> http://download.laptop.org/xo-4/os/official/13.2.0-13/32013o4.zd
>>
>>
>> unzip AU1B_2.zip
>
> Opps, make that unzip AU1B_4.zip
>>
>> rpm -Uvh *.rpm
>>
>>
>> Notes:
>> * The modemmanager error happend because now the plan is saved as a
>> integer insted of as a string. To solve it, we need change the initial
>> configuration to do:
>>
>>
>> gconftool-2 --set  /desktop/sugar/network/gsm/plan --type int 2
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy testing,
>>
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Jerry Vonau]

On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 19:37 -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> 
> On 2 September 2013 19:20, James Cameron  wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:09:09PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones
> wrote:
> > 2013/9/2 James Cameron :
> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:36:31PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones
> wrote:
> > >> I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and
> hope that by
> > >> that time we get some testing and bugfixing.
> > >
> > > How can I test on an XO?
> >
> > That's the question, James.  We don't have images this
> time.  In
> > previous releases, we had many periodic builds for testing.
>  So this
> > is something we need to solve as a community.  I hope that
> the AU
> > deploy could make one soon so we can all test.
> 
> 
> Is this new release of Sugar so different it can't even be
> retrofitted
> onto OLPC OS 13.2.0?  Can we back out those changes only, so
> that the
> rest of the changes can be tested?
> 
> 
> 
> We have some rpms that are testable:
> http://dev.laptop.org/~gonzalo/AU1B/AU1B_4.zip
> 
> 
> Instalation:
> * Install the olpc 13.2.0 image
> http://download.laptop.org/xo-4/os/official/13.2.0-13/32013o4.zd
> 
> 
> unzip AU1B_2.zip

Opps, make that unzip AU1B_4.zip
>  
> rpm -Uvh *.rpm
> 
> 
> Notes:
> * The modemmanager error happend because now the plan is saved as a
> integer insted of as a string. To solve it, we need change the initial
> configuration to do:
> 
> 
> gconftool-2 --set  /desktop/sugar/network/gsm/plan --type int 2
> 
> 
> 
> Happy testing,
> 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Jerry Vonau]

On 2 September 2013 19:20, James Cameron  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:09:09PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> > 2013/9/2 James Cameron :
> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:36:31PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> > >> I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and hope that by
> > >> that time we get some testing and bugfixing.
> > >
> > > How can I test on an XO?
> >
> > That's the question, James.  We don't have images this time.  In
> > previous releases, we had many periodic builds for testing.  So this
> > is something we need to solve as a community.  I hope that the AU
> > deploy could make one soon so we can all test.
>
> Is this new release of Sugar so different it can't even be retrofitted
> onto OLPC OS 13.2.0?  Can we back out those changes only, so that the
> rest of the changes can be tested?
>
>
We have some rpms that are testable:
http://dev.laptop.org/~gonzalo/AU1B/AU1B_4.zip

Instalation:
* Install the olpc 13.2.0 image
http://download.laptop.org/xo-4/os/official/13.2.0-13/32013o4.zd

unzip AU1B_2.zip
rpm -Uvh *.rpm

Notes:
* The modemmanager error happend because now the plan is saved as a integer
insted of as a string. To solve it, we need change the initial
configuration to do:

gconftool-2 --set  /desktop/sugar/network/gsm/plan --type int 2

Happy testing,

Jerry
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:09:09PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> 2013/9/2 James Cameron :
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:36:31PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> >> I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and hope that by
> >> that time we get some testing and bugfixing.
> >
> > How can I test on an XO?
> 
> That's the question, James.  We don't have images this time.  In
> previous releases, we had many periodic builds for testing.  So this
> is something we need to solve as a community.  I hope that the AU
> deploy could make one soon so we can all test.

Is this new release of Sugar so different it can't even be retrofitted
onto OLPC OS 13.2.0?  Can we back out those changes only, so that the
rest of the changes can be tested?

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Manuel Quiñones]

2013/9/2 James Cameron :
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:36:31PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
>> I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and hope that by
>> that time we get some testing and bugfixing.
>
> How can I test on an XO?

That's the question, James.  We don't have images this time.  In
previous releases, we had many periodic builds for testing.  So this
is something we need to solve as a community.  I hope that the AU
deploy could make one soon so we can all test.

-- 
.. manuq ..
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:36:31PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and hope that by
> that time we get some testing and bugfixing.

How can I test on an XO?

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Manuel Quiñones]

2013/9/2 Daniel Narvaez :
> On 2 September 2013 21:00, Daniel Drake  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>> wrote:
>> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every
>> > four
>> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is
>> > not
>> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather
>> > delay
>> > than release something we can't be proud of.
>>
>> Just as something to keep in mind, I would say that recent Sugar
>> release cycles have also had a certain amount of uncertainty around
>> this time. In previous cases we have just stuck to the timeline (more
>> or less) and released anyway, especially when it is unclear how long
>> the delay would otherwise need to be.
>
>
> That's good to know, thanks.
>
> Subjectively previous releases have not been of very good quality. And this
> one risks to be a lot worst because we don't have a team of several
> developers testing and fixing. The number of features we landed is probably
> greater than the number of fixes which can't be right, unless we are
> suddenly writing perfect code.
>
> I don't care too much about releasing or not, but IMO we should not go back
> accepting new features until the testing, triaging and bugs situation is a
> bit more under control.

I agree.  We should delay the hard freeze for 4 weeks and hope that by
that time we get some testing and bugfixing.

Development of sugar-web can continue as it is enough separated from
the other Sugar components.

-- 
.. manuq ..
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Chris Leonard]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't find
> a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate.
>
> Hard Code Freeze
>
> This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
> risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No source
> code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, but
> translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, of
> course, allowed without asking.


I'll keep an eye on L10n, but you probably have just about as much as
your going to get.  I've been whipping the horses to get Glucose in
good shape.

cjl
Sugar Labs Translation Team Coordinator
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

On 2 September 2013 21:00, Daniel Drake  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> wrote:
> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every four
> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is
> not
> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather delay
> > than release something we can't be proud of.
>
> Just as something to keep in mind, I would say that recent Sugar
> release cycles have also had a certain amount of uncertainty around
> this time. In previous cases we have just stuck to the timeline (more
> or less) and released anyway, especially when it is unclear how long
> the delay would otherwise need to be.


That's good to know, thanks.

Subjectively previous releases have not been of very good quality. And this
one risks to be a lot worst because we don't have a team of several
developers testing and fixing. The number of features we landed is probably
greater than the number of fixes which can't be right, unless we are
suddenly writing perfect code.

I don't care too much about releasing or not, but IMO we should not go back
accepting new features until the testing, triaging and bugs situation is a
bit more under control.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

We have been in feature freeze, which seems the closest to what you call
"bug fixes only", since 31 July. (I would not define hard code freeze as
"regressions only", even though being a regression is of course part of
what needs to be considered when deciding if landing a change or not).


On 2 September 2013 20:52, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:

> I think we didn't had a "bug fixes only" stage yet on 0.100 cycle,
> then does not have too much sense jump to "regressions only", right?
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > hard code freeze is way more strict than "bug fixes only", that's more a
> > feature freeze.
> >
> > In code freeze only very critical stuff is supposed to land. The double
> > approval is in addition to the review, to ensure only essential fixes
> lands.
> >
> > Just want to be clear what we would be buying into :)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 September 2013 20:41, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. Only fixes allowed, we can discuss if double review is needed or
> not.
> >>
> >> Gonzalo
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> >> wrote:
> >> > To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't
> >> > find
> >> > a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems
> accurate.
> >> >
> >> > Hard Code Freeze
> >> >
> >> > This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which
> could
> >> > risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No
> >> > source
> >> > code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team,
> >> > but
> >> > translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are,
> >> > of
> >> > course, allowed without asking.
> >> >
> >> > On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that
> >> >> should facilitate testing.
> >> >> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is
> >> >> aligned
> >> >> with Fedora and other projects.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gonzalo
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to
> decide
> >> >> > what
> >> >> > to do.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x
> every
> >> >> > four
> >> >> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing.
> This
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather
> >> >> > delay
> >> >> > than release something we can't be proud of.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ___
> >> >> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Narvaez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Drake]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every four
> weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is not
> what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather delay
> than release something we can't be proud of.

Just as something to keep in mind, I would say that recent Sugar
release cycles have also had a certain amount of uncertainty around
this time. In previous cases we have just stuck to the timeline (more
or less) and released anyway, especially when it is unclear how long
the delay would otherwise need to be.

Daniel
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

On 2 September 2013 20:52, Jerry Vonau  wrote:

> On 2 September 2013 13:38, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>
>> To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't
>> find a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems
>> accurate.
>>
>> Hard Code Freeze
>>
>> This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
>> risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No source
>> code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, but
>> translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, of
>> course, allowed without asking.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe that freeze should be split into 2 parts, "Hard Code Freeze" on the
> GUI part that the end-user sees(strings that are translated) might happen
> now to allow time for the translations to occur before final release.
>

This sounds like feature freeze, which we have done with 0.99.1.


> Some time later a pre-release freeze on all the code to allow time for
> bugs to be found and fixed before going final.
>

And this sounds like the various other freezes we have done with 0.99.2.

Hard code freeze is a lot more strict, as the name implies code should
change only if really really necessary. Frequent crashers, completely
broken functionality etc.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

I think we didn't had a "bug fixes only" stage yet on 0.100 cycle,
then does not have too much sense jump to "regressions only", right?

Gonzalo

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hard code freeze is way more strict than "bug fixes only", that's more a
> feature freeze.
>
> In code freeze only very critical stuff is supposed to land. The double
> approval is in addition to the review, to ensure only essential fixes lands.
>
> Just want to be clear what we would be buying into :)
>
>
>
> On 2 September 2013 20:41, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Only fixes allowed, we can discuss if double review is needed or not.
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>> wrote:
>> > To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't
>> > find
>> > a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate.
>> >
>> > Hard Code Freeze
>> >
>> > This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
>> > risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No
>> > source
>> > code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team,
>> > but
>> > translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are,
>> > of
>> > course, allowed without asking.
>> >
>> > On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that
>> >> should facilitate testing.
>> >> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is
>> >> aligned
>> >> with Fedora and other projects.
>> >>
>> >> Gonzalo
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide
>> >> > what
>> >> > to do.
>> >> >
>> >> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every
>> >> > four
>> >> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This
>> >> > is
>> >> > not
>> >> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather
>> >> > delay
>> >> > than release something we can't be proud of.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > ___
>> >> > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Narvaez
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

Hi,

hard code freeze is way more strict than "bug fixes only", that's more a
feature freeze.

In code freeze only very critical stuff is supposed to land. The double
approval is in addition to the review, to ensure only essential fixes lands.

Just want to be clear what we would be buying into :)



On 2 September 2013 20:41, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:

> Yes. Only fixes allowed, we can discuss if double review is needed or not.
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> wrote:
> > To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't
> find
> > a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate.
> >
> > Hard Code Freeze
> >
> > This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
> > risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No source
> > code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, but
> > translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, of
> > course, allowed without asking.
> >
> > On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
> >>
> >> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that
> >> should facilitate testing.
> >> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is aligned
> >> with Fedora and other projects.
> >>
> >> Gonzalo
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide
> >> > what
> >> > to do.
> >> >
> >> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every
> >> > four
> >> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This
> is
> >> > not
> >> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather
> >> > delay
> >> > than release something we can't be proud of.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Yes. Only fixes allowed, we can discuss if double review is needed or not.

Gonzalo

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't find
> a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate.
>
> Hard Code Freeze
>
> This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
> risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No source
> code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, but
> translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, of
> course, allowed without asking.
>
> On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
>>
>> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that
>> should facilitate testing.
>> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is aligned
>> with Fedora and other projects.
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide
>> > what
>> > to do.
>> >
>> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every
>> > four
>> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is
>> > not
>> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather
>> > delay
>> > than release something we can't be proud of.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't find
a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate.

Hard Code Freeze

This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could
risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No source
code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, but
translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, of
course, allowed without asking.

On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:

> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that
> should facilitate testing.
> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is aligned
> with Fedora and other projects.
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide
> what
> > to do.
> >
> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every four
> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is
> not
> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather delay
> > than release something we can't be proud of.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > ___
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that
should facilitate testing.
I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is aligned
with Fedora and other projects.

Gonzalo

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide what
> to do.
>
> I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every four
> weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is not
> what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather delay
> than release something we can't be proud of.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

Hello,

0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide what
to do.

I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every four
weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This is
not what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather
delay than release something we can't be proud of.

Thoughts?
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Thomas Gilliard]

On 08/29/2013 06:01 AM, Thomas Gilliard wrote:

On 08/29/2013 05:35 AM, Thomas Gilliard wrote:

On 08/28/2013 11:03 AM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:

I agree in the need of testing.
Testing is more difficult this cycle because:
* We have less developers working.
* We don't have the images we usually used to test on our main 
hardware platform (XO*) yet.

I don't know if any test is done now on Fedora 20 Sugar spin,
Soas F20 Alpha TC1 live x86_64 starts as a gnome desktop with only 
e-toys and a utility group of apps. There is no sugar.
yum install @sugar-desktop does not install sugar.  This has been the 
case for a while in nightly composes also.


TC2 is just out and I am looking at it.


Same for f20 Alpha TC2:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:Soas-Alpha-TC2-x86_64.png


I just did "yum install lightdm" in {alt} {f2} root console of installed 
F20_Alpha_TC-2-Soas and sugar starts after restart:


(I remembered we used lightdm in f19 Soas)

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:F20_Alpha_TC-2-SoaS_with_lightdm_.png

Tom Gilliard


Tom Gilliard
but according to Peter Robinson mail, not too much communication 
from that part.
From my part, I am building rpms for Australia, to use sugar 0.100 
on a F18 image.
We will do testing on that, but not in the web part, at least not 
now, due to missing dependencies.


Gonzalo


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote:


On 28 August 2013 19:33, Walter Bender mailto:walter.ben...@gmail.com>> wrote:


To me the issue is that we have no sense of the urgency of
the 250
bugs that have not been triaged. Most of the bugs that have been
triaged are not urgent and should not hold up the release.
(They can
be tagged for 102 with little consequence.) But the great
unknown is
what scares me.


There are those and there are the N bugs which has not been
discovered because people are not testing... We can block
rescheduling on completing the triage but can we block on
someone doing the testing? This is totally a subjective feeling
but my impression is that the worst bugs are unreported.

I was hoping to go towards continuous development gradually
after 0.100 but now I sort of feel forced into it because there
are too many unknowns to put down a schedule.

___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel




___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel






___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Thomas Gilliard]

On 08/29/2013 05:35 AM, Thomas Gilliard wrote:

On 08/28/2013 11:03 AM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:

I agree in the need of testing.
Testing is more difficult this cycle because:
* We have less developers working.
* We don't have the images we usually used to test on our main 
hardware platform (XO*) yet.

I don't know if any test is done now on Fedora 20 Sugar spin,
Soas F20 Alpha TC1 live x86_64 starts as a gnome desktop with only 
e-toys and a utility group of apps. There is no sugar.
yum install @sugar-desktop does not install sugar.  This has been the 
case for a while in nightly composes also.


TC2 is just out and I am looking at it.


Same for f20 Alpha TC2:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:Soas-Alpha-TC2-x86_64.png


Tom Gilliard
but according to Peter Robinson mail, not too much communication from 
that part.
From my part, I am building rpms for Australia, to use sugar 0.100 on 
a F18 image.
We will do testing on that, but not in the web part, at least not 
now, due to missing dependencies.


Gonzalo


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote:


On 28 August 2013 19:33, Walter Bender mailto:walter.ben...@gmail.com>> wrote:


To me the issue is that we have no sense of the urgency of
the 250
bugs that have not been triaged. Most of the bugs that have been
triaged are not urgent and should not hold up the release.
(They can
be tagged for 102 with little consequence.) But the great
unknown is
what scares me.


There are those and there are the N bugs which has not been
discovered because people are not testing... We can block
rescheduling on completing the triage but can we block on someone
doing the testing? This is totally a subjective feeling but my
impression is that the worst bugs are unreported.

I was hoping to go towards continuous development gradually after
0.100 but now I sort of feel forced into it because there are too
many unknowns to put down a schedule.

___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel




___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel




___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Thomas Gilliard]

On 08/28/2013 11:03 AM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:

I agree in the need of testing.
Testing is more difficult this cycle because:
* We have less developers working.
* We don't have the images we usually used to test on our main 
hardware platform (XO*) yet.

I don't know if any test is done now on Fedora 20 Sugar spin,
Soas F20 Alpha TC1 live x86_64 starts as a gnome desktop with only 
e-toys and a utility group of apps. There is no sugar.
yum install @sugar-desktop does not install sugar.  This has been the 
case for a while in nightly composes also.


TC2 is just out and I am looking at it.

Tom Gilliard
but according to Peter Robinson mail, not too much communication from 
that part.
From my part, I am building rpms for Australia, to use sugar 0.100 on 
a F18 image.
We will do testing on that, but not in the web part, at least not now, 
due to missing dependencies.


Gonzalo


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote:


On 28 August 2013 19:33, Walter Bender mailto:walter.ben...@gmail.com>> wrote:


To me the issue is that we have no sense of the urgency of the 250
bugs that have not been triaged. Most of the bugs that have been
triaged are not urgent and should not hold up the release.
(They can
be tagged for 102 with little consequence.) But the great
unknown is
what scares me.


There are those and there are the N bugs which has not been
discovered because people are not testing... We can block
rescheduling on completing the triage but can we block on someone
doing the testing? This is totally a subjective feeling but my
impression is that the worst bugs are unreported.

I was hoping to go towards continuous development gradually after
0.100 but now I sort of feel forced into it because there are too
many unknowns to put down a schedule.

___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel




___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 August 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>
>> From my part, I am building rpms for Australia, to use sugar 0.100 on a
>> F18 image.
>> We will do testing on that, but not in the web part, at least not now, due
>> to missing dependencies.
>
>
> I wonder if anyone is planning a F19/F20 image for the XO?

Can we discuss further the advantages of f18 v f19 for .AU?

-walter

>
> Testing of the web bits is probably not essential yet, but it would be
> pretty bad if people wasn't able to start developing web activities on the
> XO soon.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

On Wednesday, 28 August 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
> From my part, I am building rpms for Australia, to use sugar 0.100 on a
> F18 image.
> We will do testing on that, but not in the web part, at least not now, due
> to missing dependencies.
>

I wonder if anyone is planning a F19/F20 image for the XO?

Testing of the web bits is probably not essential yet, but it would be
pretty bad if people wasn't able to start developing web activities on the
XO soon.


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

I agree in the need of testing.
Testing is more difficult this cycle because:
* We have less developers working.
* We don't have the images we usually used to test on our main hardware
platform (XO*) yet.
I don't know if any test is done now on Fedora 20 Sugar spin,
but according to Peter Robinson mail, not too much communication from that
part.
>From my part, I am building rpms for Australia, to use sugar 0.100 on a F18
image.
We will do testing on that, but not in the web part, at least not now, due
to missing dependencies.

Gonzalo


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:

> On 28 August 2013 19:33, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>>
>> To me the issue is that we have no sense of the urgency of the 250
>> bugs that have not been triaged. Most of the bugs that have been
>> triaged are not urgent and should not hold up the release. (They can
>> be tagged for 102 with little consequence.) But the great unknown is
>> what scares me.
>
>
> There are those and there are the N bugs which has not been discovered
> because people are not testing... We can block rescheduling on completing
> the triage but can we block on someone doing the testing? This is totally a
> subjective feeling but my impression is that the worst bugs are unreported.
>
> I was hoping to go towards continuous development gradually after 0.100
> but now I sort of feel forced into it because there are too many unknowns
> to put down a schedule.
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Daniel Narvaez]

On 28 August 2013 19:33, Walter Bender  wrote:

>
> To me the issue is that we have no sense of the urgency of the 250
> bugs that have not been triaged. Most of the bugs that have been
> triaged are not urgent and should not hold up the release. (They can
> be tagged for 102 with little consequence.) But the great unknown is
> what scares me.


There are those and there are the N bugs which has not been discovered
because people are not testing... We can block rescheduling on completing
the triage but can we block on someone doing the testing? This is totally a
subjective feeling but my impression is that the worst bugs are unreported.

I was hoping to go towards continuous development gradually after 0.100 but
now I sort of feel forced into it because there are too many unknowns to
put down a schedule.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Are we ready for code freeze?

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> code freeze is due on 4 September. We have seven days left and I don't think
> we are going to be ready, there are still > 250 bugs to triage, 11 must fix
> already tagged, very little testing done judging from the number of incoming
> bug reports and a "not ready" feeling when running master.
>
> The options I see are:
>
> 1 Fix as many bug as possible during the time left and release anyway. If
> someone does testing and report critical bugs later, fix them in minor
> releases.
> 2 Reschedule to have N weeks to do more testing and triaging, then N weeks
> to clear the must fix list.
> 3 Switch to continuous development (details to be defined, but hopefully you
> get what I mean).
>
> I tend to think we should do 1 and then 3 or 3 directly. My feeling is that
> our usual time based releases process doesn't work well in a situation where
> there are no firm resources to commit by anyone.
>
> Just dumping my mind really, I'm mostly interested to hear how people feel
> about the situation.
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>

To me the issue is that we have no sense of the urgency of the 250
bugs that have not been triaged. Most of the bugs that have been
triaged are not urgent and should not hold up the release. (They can
be tagged for 102 with little consequence.) But the great unknown is
what scares me.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel