RE: 1.9.0-alpha2 up for testing/signing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:ivan_at_visualsvn.com]
> Sent: woensdag 2 april 2014 11:37
> To: Ben Reser
> Cc: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: 1.9.0-alpha2 up for testing/signing
>
> On 31 March 2014 21:25, Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org> wrote:
> > On 3/4/14, 1:23 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> >> The 1.9.0-alpha2 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
> >> Please get the tarballs from
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> >> and add your signatures there. There's no particular schedule to this it's
> >> ready when it's ready.
> >
> > All we need is one Windows vote (and have since the 19th). Can someone
> please
> > take a little bit of time to vote for Windows? Ivan or Mark you guys out
> there?
> >
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> I didn't vote for 1.9.0-alpha2 because I believe that current trunk
> should not be released even with alpha label. So effectively my vote
> was -0.5, but I decided didn't express my vote if will be 3+3 people
> interesting in driving 1.9.0-alpha2. But reality shown that developers
> are not interested so much in 1.9.0-alpha2. Changing release polices
> to overcome developers opinion is not good for community IMHO, but
> this is topic for another thread.

I agree with this reasoning. I think we should look at the alpha/beta release process and its potential audience instead of trying to release something that wasn't really tested.

I don't think we need the full test cycle of an actual release for an alpha, but just relaxing the rules to the point where we can release something is not the solution.

I would +1 something like at least X signatures (3, 4?), at least one Windows and one Unix vote... and something like the apache standard 72 hours (which we usually don’t have explicitly in our release cycle as we require more votes; which usually takes well over 72 hours).

We've had releases where we got either the *nix or the Windows votes in just a few hours after posting the binaries... (Which one mostly depended on the time of release (normal workweek vs long weekend)... I can't remember cases where we got both that fast)

But I'm wondering who we are releasing for if we can't even get our own developers to run a test cycle...
And do we really help them by releasing that had less testing from our side.

Should we really ask our users to test something, that we don't want to spend time on testing it ourselves?

        Bert
Received on 2014-04-02 13:01:43 CEST