[csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal

[James Lee]

On 07/02/10, 20:37:01, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote regarding
Re: [csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal:

> >> One of the larger topics during the Wintercamp in Zurich was the
> >> release schedule: how do we get a new stable?  Last weekend, I sat
> >> down and wrote up a document describing the release proposal.  It
> >> describes the initial problem,
> >
> > Some attendees of your meeting control blocking bugs, we need less
> > talk and more action.

> Then how about assembling a list of bugs to be fixed before a new
> stable?

Mantis is a list of bugs.  Look for block, crash or major and just do
it.


> This is one of the things which we want to fix by assigning bugs to
> specific released so this list can be assembled automatically.

Let's say there was a bug with a package that was only revealed by a
new version of another package, the bug on the first package alone
does not prevent the 2nd from being released.  If the 2nd package is
kept back everything is fine and bugs are tolerable although it gets
complex if that 2nd package supports or requires others and a new
branch needs to be created but crucially the initial bug need not be
blocking.  Of course the best action is to fix the initial bug but
that's where I started.



> >> http://wiki.opencsw.org/releases-and-staging
> >
> >> I'd like to thank all the people who helped by discussing,
> >> copy-editing and reviewing the document.
> >
> >> What do people think about this design?  Should we modify it?  Should
> >> we implement it?  Please discuss.
> >
> > This is roughly what has existed for several years.
> >
> > Name changes.  The snapshot has used its date stamp name and it works
> > for its purpose.  Experiment means a test or investigation planned to
> > provide evidence for or against a hypothesis.  What we currently
> > called
> > testing has release candidates and is not for proving hypotheses,
> > therefor testing is a better name and is the currently used and known
> > name.

> I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you propose a different
> naming or a different process than what was described?

I'm not making a proposal.


>  That building
> a catalog on testing is absolutely useless has been shown in the past

Which I pointed out many times.


> and the new experimental is already there. I suggest you specifically
> point out problems in the proposal and suggest specific changes to
> changes in the document like "I propose to change this paragraph
> to the following words: ...". Or do you want to say we should just
> keep the process as is?

Anyone can suggest change - make it in the form of a proposal and fully
justify it.  It is for the proposer not me to say "I propose ...".  I
can't work with wiki pages appearing and being treating as the standard.




James.