geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:53:53 GMT
Aaron,

I like the schedule below.  From a 1.1 perspective I think we made several mistakes.  We were

optimistic about our time, we were unclear about the content, we disrupted development for
many 
while only a few did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the rework).
 After 
that we let the TCK stumble, etc.

 From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a significant release.  I
would 
like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after we cut 1.1.  For that release I want to address outstanding

JIRAs, usability and performance.  Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested
in 
helping out there as well.  I'll start another thread on that topic when we get 1.1 out the
door.

I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some incremental 1.1.x releases
it 
might fill in the gaps nicely.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good.  Can you put together a time table representation of
>> this idea?  It would help me understand the nuances.
> 
> Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2:
> 
> June 12: 1.1 released
>   - select release manager for 1.2
>   - set goals for 1.2
> July 1: 1.2-M1 released
> July 21: 1.2-M2 released
> August 14: 1.2-beta1 released
> Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features
> Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs
>   - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created
> Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released
> Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2
> Oct 1: release 1.2
> 
> Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release.
> And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1
> then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan.  What
> do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message