On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Branko ╚ibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Have we reached any consensus or made a decision on the release? I
>> think the conversation has stalled but maybe it has continued off
>> list. It seems like we have these options available:
>> 1) Release 1.5 the week of June 2 based on current RC5
>> 2) Release RC6 next week based on a new branch from RC5 + selected
>> safe fixes and API changes. GA to follow by a week.
>> 3) Release RC6 next week based on current branch and start a new soak
>> I am not in favor of #3 if we are talking about a full 4-week soak.
>> I'd be OK with 2 weeks, in fact that option would be my personal
> Since when is any Subversion release tied to a particular schedule? And why
> halve the soak period just to meet that schedule?
> Reading the above doesn't make me at all happy. It implies there's an
> implied schedule somewhere that did not originate within this project.
The only schedule is that we are clearly near the end of the process
and the above dates were already tossed out by our release manager and
discussed in another thread. No one is saying that it has to be out
by X. But I think it is reasonable to be asking what our plans are so
that we can all set expectations. Speaking personally, I have to
produce binaries for four different operating systems and coordinate
the testing effort etc. I want to know what our best effort thoughts
are so that I can plan and request the resources I need. Whether it
be 2 weeks from now or 4 weeks from now. Is that somehow
As for halving the soak period that was just one proposed option.
Clearly we cannot wait for every bug to be resolved + 4 weeks. We
have never shipped a release without known bugs. I'd be fine going
with our current RC5. The main issue is that some API ickiness was
found and cleaned up. If we fix it now we do not have to support the
ickiness. So that opens the door for an RC6 at which point we have to
at least consider some of the other bug fixes that have been
backported. I think most of them can wait for a 1.5.1 but I also
think our policies are no longer productive or accomplishing the goals
if we want to add 4 more weeks just to get these fixes that have been
queued up. As I said in the other thread, our policy is ironic in
that if we fix the bugs before release, we have to resoak for four
weeks. Yet if we ship the release with known bugs that are fixed, we
can release a 1.5.1 with zero days, let alone weeks, of soak.
Received on 2008-05-22 00:14:19 CEST