On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 09:52 -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote:
On 08/17/11 - 08:32:50AM, Steve Linabery wrote:
> Since our release process has become easier of late, I would like to
> try to do a minor release (0.3.1) of the aeolus packages at the end
> of the current sprint (Tuesday, 23 August).
>
> For that to work, it would be ideal to have all patches tested and
> pushed by Friday, 19 August. That's the RFC part of this message: do
> we think it would be possible to make that deadline?
>
> Ideally, in order to do releases at the end of each sprint, we
> should have a few days built in for packaging and testing. How do
> you see our chances for doing that this sprint?
The thing I would suggest here is that we *not* do feature-based releases.
Almost all successful open-source projects that I know of do time-based
releases; if a particular feature makes a release, great, and if not, it just
gets punted to the next one. This makes sure that you don't have interminably
long release cycles waiting for a particular feature to get in that you
promised. I would suggest we do the same; say "the next version is coming out
on *this* date", and then just stick to it.
Definitely. And well said.
<aside>
Havoc Pennington's original proposal for GNOME to adopt time-based
releases is still worth a read:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-June/msg00041.html
Funnily enough, this was written not long after the Agile Manifesto, but
I don't think it was influenced by Agile. Reading it now, though, you
can see a lot of overlap with Agile Principles - e.g. it's all about
"continuous delivery of valuable software".
</aside>
Additionally, I think we probably want to do a different numbering
scheme.
0.3.1 sounds like a maintenance release for 0.3 series, and in point of fact
I think we may want to do that eventually. It does not sound like the
development release heading towards a new version. I would suggest something
like 0.4.0-m1 (for milestone 1), or similar. That way we will work towards a
final 0.4.0. The one snafu here would be RPM versioning, as 0.4.0-m1 might
be "bigger" than 0.4.0, but we can probably figure something out.
Just call it 0.4.0 IMHO.
Cheers,
Mark.