incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Winscot <rick.wins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Automation] Could we lose automation for legal or business reasons?
Date Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:56:04 GMT
PMC - your mission, should you choose to accept it...  ;-)

I think that verbiage is getting in the way a little bit... IMO the term 'release' may get
people thinking that they will be able to drop the old for the new. I've mentioned this before...
I just don't see that happening in the short-term. Seriously, there are many - many details
that need to be ironed out.

Can we adopt a 'release dialect' that helps communicate the following to the community more
clearly? As an example...


Development / Nightly Release (Nightly)
Bleeding edge... you get what you get and you don't throw a fit. Jira issues are not typically
logged against nightly builds.

Alpha Release (Alpha)
Features / functionality are frozen. Any / all issues found should be logged in Jira. May
contain issues trivial -> critical.

Beta Release (Beta)
Any / all issues found should be logged in Jira. May contain issues trivial -> major. The
goal is to reduce the major and critical issues - progressing towards a release candidate.

Release Candidate (RC)
Any / all issues found should be logged in Jira. Logged issues may be deferred for future
releases. May contain issues trivial -> minor. If present, major issues should include
workarounds ( if possible ).

Stable / Production Release (SR )
Ready for ham sandwiches.


Eh? ( I'm not canadian ).  

--  
Rick Winscot


On Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Frédéric Thomas wrote:

> In order to focus and work on what will be included in the first release,  
> it's maybe not a bad thing to do a list what will not be included in it.
>  
> We knew already about the RSLs, now, automation, what else ?
>  
> Frédéric Thomas
>  
> -----Message d'origine-----  
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:58 AM
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org (mailto:flex-dev@incubator.apache.org)
> Subject: Re: [Automation] Could we lose automation for legal or business  
> reasons?
>  
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, David Arno <david@davidarno.org (mailto:david@davidarno.org)>
wrote:
> > ..."Hey world,
> > here's the first ever Apache release of Flex. Please note, before  
> > attempting
> > to use it, you should read our release notes where we detail all of the  
> > bits
> > of Adobe Flex that you likely use, but that Adobe chose not to denote to  
> > us
> > after all. You'll likely stick with 4.6 as a result, but hey at least Flex
> > is open source now, even if it's broken."
> >  
> > Great PR that would be!...
>  
> As an incubation mentor I have previously suggested that creating a
> first release as soon as possible would be a good thing in terms of
> "training" this team with the Apache release process.
>  
> I still think that's a good idea, and I assume we wouldn't make much
> noise about such a release. We can call it a "subset release" or
> whatever's suitable, its just a good step towards making a first
> "real" release that Flex users find really useful compared to the
> current Adobe Flex release.
>  
> If you're frustrated about the full code donation taking too much
> time, that's a totally different topic IMO. If the code had been fully
> donated already, I would still recommend releasing it as soon as
> possible, but for users having a release that doesn't bring any new
> features is not really useful anyway, so that wouldn't change this
> situation.
>  
> -Bertrand  


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