fineract-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terence Monteiro <tere...@sanjosesolutions.in>
Subject Re: Release cycle 2 months, soak period 2 weeks?
Date Sun, 10 Jan 2016 05:28:16 GMT
+1.

I believe releases should be both time bound and incorporate what Markus
calls "user driven features". Assuming we have consensus on the (punctual)
train based model, I would propose using signed tags for releases and also
numbering  releases based on the YYYY.mm model (not sure if I'm repeating
what's already somewhere in the wiki). My rationale is release automation
is easier and multi-platform and uses git's inherent cmdline tools to get
the release number from the tag itself and also have verifiable method for
a partner or source code downloader authenticating the major release source
code. On *nix I can simply say `date "+%Y.%m"` and use it in a shell script
for instance to generate packages more easily. Think bin/make-release.sh
(and maybe bin/make-release.bat) under the project root folder for instance.

--
Best Regards,
Terence Monteiro,
Mob: +91 96633 13728


www.sanjosesolutions.in
"Providence", No. 36,
Ahmed Sait Road,
Frazer Town, Bangalore - 5.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Cool.
>
> Note, +1 is just an explicit shorthand for "I agree and will help to merge
> it happen", it does happen to be the same shorthand were use in voting, but
> it's not voting.
>
> Other common shorthand is:
>
> +0 sounds good but I can't help directly
>
> -0 I'm not convinced but I have no alternative to offer so if you want yo
> do it that way, fine
>
> -1 I think that would be a mistake because ... Here's my alternative
> approach ...
>
> Of course it's not an exact science, just a shorthand intended to help
> gage community support for a proposal.
>
> The last one is important. It indicates a lack of consensus and the
> alternative approach should be discussed further. Ask the others are just
> shorthand.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Markus Geiß<mailto:markus.geiss@live.de>
> Sent: ‎1/‎9/‎2016 4:12 AM
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Release cycle 2 months, soak period 2 weeks?
>
> +1 [even if we try to avoid voting ; o)]
>
> We are on the same page here, using time-based releases but keeping
> the develop branch clean and buildable to allow additional releases if
> needed.
>
> Best,
>
> Markus
>
> .::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::.
>
> > From: Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Release cycle 2 months, soak period 2 weeks?
> > Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 04:19:18 +0000
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I meant feature based releases should be possible outside the two month
> cycle ;-)
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > ________________________________
> > From: Greg Stein<mailto:gstein@gmail.com>
> > Sent: ‎1/‎8/‎2016 7:38 AM
> > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Release cycle 2 months, soak period 2 weeks?
> >
> > To provide another view: cutting releases "every two months" creates
> > *activity* which attracts users/developers. Going with a feature-based
> > release might end up with a long delay [until the feature(s) are done],
> > which then appears as stagnation.
> >
> > We switched to date-based releases in Subversion's early development, and
> > interest dramatically spiked. We used a metaphor of a "train". If a
> feature
> > gets on the train, then great. If not ... no big deal. It will catch the
> > next train. No need to stress.
> >
> > That said, I'll reinforce Ross' statement of keeping the main branch
> > buildable and useful. That enables a release according to any schedule or
> > need you'd like. And to get source here, as soon as possible.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Note, ASF projects will typically release "as required". Setting an
> > > expected cadence in policy is all fine.what matters is someone does the
> > > work.
> > >
> > > Keeping trunk in an "always releaseable" state is preferable to a
> promise
> > > of another release in x months. This means that anyone can cut a
> release
> > > and start the process at any time.
> > >
> > > Remember, Apache projects only release source code (binaries are only a
> > > convenience that some projects choose to provide). The goal is to allow
> > > downstream users more flexibility than an official release cycle
> documented
> > > in policy. That is cut a release whenever one is needed rather than
> when
> > > someone else in the community decides its time. Remember anyone
> (committer
> > > or otherwise) can produce a release candidate and releases cannot be
> vetoed
> > > (thigh releases need to be approved by the PPMc).
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to put a stop to policy working, but honestly, starting
> the
> > > removal of non-compliant licenses will get us to that first release
> much
> > > more quickly.
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Myrle Krantz<mailto:mkrantz@mifos.org>
> > > Sent: ‎1/‎8/‎2016 9:57 AM
> > > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> > > dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Release cycle 2 months, soak period 2 weeks?
> > >
> > > I'm not entirely sure we are talking about the same thing.
> > >
> > > As I wrote in the document I sent to start this thread:
> > >
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwiki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fFINERACT%2fRelease%2bManagement&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ObRmLmfpC6ceQGQZuXCe0ZcOR6kHo1kpInNIMNGom14%3d
> > >
> > > "Release branches are created every two months at the beginning of the
> > > following month from the changes that were merged by the last day of
> the
> > > previous month.
> > >
> > > If a feature is almost but not quite done at the end of the month, the
> > > release is not delayed for the feature.  That feature goes into the
> next
> > > release scheduled for two months later."
> > >
> > >
> > > If we choose to work according to the plan I described, then we would
> be
> > > working on a date-driven cadence, at least as I understand it.
> > >
> > > Of course we are releasing features and not tool bundles, so we won't
> make
> > > a release if there are no changes merged in those two months.  If
> there's
> > > even one change, I would expect a release.  And if that change is
> finished
> > > two days after the deadline, I would expect the release to come at the
> next
> > > two-monthly release.
> > >
> > > Gitlab does something similar, but with a release period of one month:
> > >
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fabout.gitlab.com%2f2015%2f12%2f07%2fwhy-we-shift-objectives-and-not-release-dates-at-gitlab%2f&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=mPfHddysNWSr5Ny2Mn3WIiNm2l%2blpeZ9%2fBpvZMoKuKs%3d
> > >
> > >
> > > Greets,
> > >
> > > Myrle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Myrle Krantz*
> > > Solutions Architect
> > > RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
> > > mkrantz@mifos.org | Skype:
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mkrantz.mifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=mWTUs0BSMkHgTc1HEjL74ThI91jT79Xnk%2f8WZokmg8U%3d
> > > |
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmifos.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=jXa1LqIPVvsHvmrGi6vGEhPMNbisByxEDKxfATf0LQk%3d
> > > <
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ffacebook.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2Y1ZdQx35Uymx841zX1J3ckaI2wRihC8APzFYYsPmNc%3d
> >
> > > <
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.twitter.com%2fmifos&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Ju51bsgXVuYDROgkNLYE7ytn%2b6Q3M6TamHHm6f43qgg%3d
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Markus Geiss <markus.geiss@live.de>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01/07/2016 05:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkrantz@mifos.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Fin Fans,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> To start the conversation on release cycle, I've documented my
> > > suggestion
> > > >>> here:
> > > >>>
> > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwiki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fFINERACT%2fRelease%2bManagement&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbd07f873744844790f8908d318122a65%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ObRmLmfpC6ceQGQZuXCe0ZcOR6kHo1kpInNIMNGom14%3d
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The additions to what was there before consist of:
> > > >>> * release cycle length added
> > > >>> * soak period shortened to better match release cycle length
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Would it be possible to spell out your release cadence model more
> > > >> explicitly?
> > > >> Is it a date-driven cadence (like Ubuntu, lets say) or a
> feature-driven
> > > >> one?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Roman.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Given that we are releasing a software product, not a distribution
> of a
> > > > certain kind, e.g. Ubuntu, CentOS, Mint, I think a feature-driven
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > > The development of Fineract will be driven by user requirements,
> > > > specific to the platform. Bundled libraries will only have influence
> > > > on the release schedule if a security issue was detected and fixed.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Markus
> > > >
> > > > .::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::.
> > > >
> > >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message