community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: How can we support a faster release cadence?
Date Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:57:10 GMT
I have a real example where defined cadence is not as good as the Apache Way.

It is Apache OpenOffice without a defined cadence and LibreOffice which has one. I am certainly
biased by AOO has done very well. I know Jan wishes the PMC was faster about at times, but
it is what it is and what it is a very awesome free Office for the whole world.

As a volunteer I am very proud and it has nothing directly to do with my work.

On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:

> Frankly the notion that there is empirical evidence that
> the standard Apache process is “too slow and buggy” is a straw man.
> I have over a decade of personal anecdotal evidence watching
> Apache projects self-improve and serve the needs of their
> communities rather well.  If anything, I’d say many projects
> go too fast already, especially when they are doing a new
> major release.  A full week’s soak out on the dev list usually
> produces fewer duds in those circumstances.
> 
> I don’t deny that there is literature that says faster releases
> are ‘better’, but that observation lacks a base point relative
> to Apache processes.  Clearly we can all agree that there is 
> a notion of going “too fast”, going “too slow”, and a desire amongst
> some people to “go faster”, but those are entirely subjective
> and seemingly lack any assessment of the consequences of theses
> choices on healthy group dynamics.  After all, Apache projects
> are all in the recruitment business, and I don’t see how speed
> for the sake of speed leads to more activity from newcomers to
> the process.  All I see are comments like how great it is that
> we are giving users fast turnaround on their bugs, but no mention
> of how we are capturing those users attention and converting their
> self-interest into project development.
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:47 PM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 10 February 2014 23:13, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:54 PM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I strongly believe we (ASF) shall do whatever we can to make sure our
>>>> releases are as stable as possible !
>>> 
>>> Those who advocate scheduled releases and a fast cadence believe that they
>>> are
>>> doing exactly that.  In fact, the argument goes that bunching up large
>>> amounts
>>> of changes in each release makes for lower quality.
>>> 
>>> Who's right, you or them?  Are you so sure of your conclusion that you
>>> believe
>>> communities which want to follow these practices must be excluded from the
>>> ASF
>>> because you believe their software will inevitably be low quality?
>>> 
>> 
>> I just made personal observations from my personal experience. I am not the
>> one to judge who is right or wrong. And please remark I did not talk about
>> excluding projects, that would be very wrong !
>> 
>> I have worked mainly with international projects with participants from
>> many continents (like many of our projects), and maybe that fact is the
>> root cause of the problems I have experienced. Having to cope with
>> china/europe/US within a 24 hour frame, often lead to the problems I
>> described, and I can only assume it must be a lot harder with volunteers.
>> 
>> I simply tried to suggest a middleway that might be (or might not be)
>> acceptable to broader group.
>> 
>> 
>>> This isn't new, or experimental.  It's a major movement in software
>>> development, years old, with many popular, successful projects on board.
>>> 
>> 
>>> Marvin Humphrey
> 


Mime
View raw message