geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:41:25 GMT
3.5 months for the planned cycle seems a bit two long especially when  
you think it would be reasonable to bump it for something important.   
I personally would like to see 2 months planned, so if it runs long  
we are closer to 3 months instead of 4.

-dain

On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:22 PM, 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