geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <drw_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:50:15 GMT
I like that model too, as long as we can still deliver more than one 
release a year and we allow more people to have commit access to the 
sandbox area for more collaboration on major enhancements and changes...


-Donald


Jason Dillon wrote:
> I think SuSE-like would be a good idea too. 
> 
> --jason
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Aaron Mulder" <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39 
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
> 
> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
> 
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
> 
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>>Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
>>>>claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
>>>>it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>>>>working toward are.
>>>
>>>I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
>>>calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
>>>all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>>>revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>>>suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
>>>organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>>>immensely.
>>
>>I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>>helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>>talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
>>extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
>>consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>>share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>>Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>>these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>>
>>It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>>talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
>>that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>>these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>>clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>>way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>>communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>>A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>>>good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>>>cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>>>might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
>>>any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
>>>But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>>>
>>>Just my $0.02.
>>>
>>>Bruce
>>

Mime
View raw message