[csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi James,

Am 08.02.2010 um 15:47 schrieb James Lee:
> On 08/02/10, 12:42:36, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote regarding
> Re: [csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal:
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
>> So we should stick to what we have and just drop the proposal?
> 
> Don't ask me, I'm not making a proposal.  Discuss options and merits,
> suggest changes in form of a proposal, adopt if approved.  Individuals
> may vote with feet if not acceptable.

We made a proposal and we can now happily discuss options and
merits.

>>>> 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.
> 
>> The wiki page is a proposal and you propose a change to the proposal.
>> So how about some discussion on the matter instead of the wording?
> 
> You've already put release candidate packages under experimental, so is
> it just a proposal?   Ref also:
> http://wiki.opencsw.org/automated-release-process
> no mention of proposition status.

Do you like it? If you have ideas to make this easier or more
useful just say so. Additionally, I haven't changed anything on
testing/, so, yes, it is still a proposal. If I get no feedback
it may become the new standard.

> The wording defines the matter so is inseparable - it's a written
> proposal.  I've already question the naming and that there isn't much
> materially different to what has happened, at least there is not
> sufficient detail such that I can tell what distinguishes the proposal,
> perhaps it could explain?  i.e. make incremental on previous.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Really. What do
you mean by "what distinguishes the proposal"?

> 6 month cycles make releases harder because it's harder to hold stuff
> back the longer the gap is.  This situation afflicts us now having to
> accommodate a period of great change and innovation.  Only regularly
> updated packages occur in every cycle and these tend not to be the
> problematic ones anyway.

Ok, so you are suggesting shortening release cycles to 4 or 3 month.
During the discussion the problem was seen that there may be too
many issues on testing/ to be fixed in that short amount in time and
that a longer duration allows easier fixing. We can start with a
shorter time and see if it works and extend it if necessary.
I adjusted the wording on the proposal accordingly.


Best regards

   -- Dago