[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

[Guy Gascoigne-Piggford]

I guess as a user, knowing that Dev and QA are complete doesn't really mean
that a product is released if I can't install it.  As a user of bzr I take
release announcements with a grain of salt since to me all they mean is that
another stage in the release process has been triggered and that a little
while later, sometimes a day, sometimes a week, there'll be a product I can
install.  I don't really consider it waiting another day etc. I just
consider it waiting for the release, email announcements to the contrary, I
just can't be bothered to grab the source so I'll wait for installer.  I'm
not that hung up on dates, I don't really care if it's a day-0 package, the
installer's ready when it's ready, and then it's released. Everything before
that is just an early access option from my point of view.

The term Release means different things to different people, I'm a
developer, I know that I've got a different opinion to it when compared to
some others in my office,  but installers are first class citizens, they
need to be part of the same process, and honestly they are what a lot of
users consider to be the release vehicle.  None of this changes the
technical challenges of who, how, where and when.

Guy

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com
> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Guy Gascoigne-Piggford wrote:
> > Strongly seconded.
> >
>
> Just to mention, I've *often* released a X.Y-2 or even X.Y-3 because of
> packaging issues. I haven't done one for 1.17 specifically, because it
> is unclear what actually needed to be done. (I think it needs a newer
> bzr-rebase/rewrite, though not positive.)
>
> I *don't* think we need to release 1.17.1 because packaging failed. That
> is why the packages are labeled 1.17-1, as the final -Z indicates the
> *packaging* release number. Failures in packaging bump the packaging
> release number, not the bzr release number.
>
> If someone wants to propose a reasonable fix to get the all-in-one
> installer working (like telling me "use bzr-rewrite-0.5.100", then I'll
> go package one and let you poke at it.
>
>
> I would like to see packaging work a little better than it does today.
> We have some work from Sidnei da Silva to get a continuous build process
> via buildbot. (Not complete yet, or at least, not up to date.)
>
> However, there is a fairly large overhead in dealing with packaging,
> which is then compounding the difficulty of managing a release. And when
> you do at least a minor release 1/mo you want that to be a simple as you
> can make it.
>
> It would probably be good to have an item on a RM's checklist to go poke
> the people who build installers a couple of days after the official
> release has gone out.
>
> I'm *never* going to promise day-0 packages. Between coordinating
> timezones, vacation schedules, level of development activity, bugfixing,
> etc. Packaging is important, it certainly isn't the most important thing.
>
> Heck, when we get to the point of stable-every-6-months... if you are
> running code that is 6mo out of date, does it really matter if it takes
> an extra day to get it to you?
>
> John
> =:->
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpwjlcACgkQJdeBCYSNAANFMgCfZiOc8QMaSUD8/U2n9l/f9NpR
> P/oAoMMNoCrucDaiOXnPOnLjJ46oT3eR
> =Pp9e
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090729/9cfb2582/attachment.htm