incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE][3.5] Process thinking - defect&feature rules, iteration...
Date Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:26:44 GMT
On 7/18/12 9:02 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote:
> Hi, all,
>   I made some update on the AOO 3.5 Release Planning wiki Juergen created:
>   And besides proposing contents in the High Level Overview table, I think
> we should also think about the release process. And below are what in my
> mind:
> 1. Defect/Enhancement rule
> In 3.5, there will be not only defects, but also some feature enhancements
> that need relatively bigger development efforts. The 3.5 release circle
> will also be longer than 3.4.1. And more contributors will participate, I
> believe. So it is very important to build up a good traceability, so that
> we can query out the project status automatically, but not rely on people's
> input in wiki.
> To make it happen, we need to define some rules in Bugzilla for:
> (1) Defect/Enhancement creating. e.g. against which Version, define of the
> Severity/Priority, Keywords needed...
> (2) Defect triage. How do we decide if a fix or a feature should be in 3.5
> or not? Where do we record our decision (e.g. in Target Milestone, or
> Flags)? It will become important when we close to GA, or deliver a
> milestone build.

all fixes should be allowed to go into a release. And I think all
features as well if there are no valid concerns. After having the fixes
in a milestone build we can set the target of the issue to 3.5 for
example. This will make it clear that it goes into the 3.5, was already
part of a milestone build and will be part of further milestones.

We should define the fix integration order. Currently we follow the
approach to fix on trunk and merge in the branch on demand. Or fix on
branch only if branch specific like branding for example.

> (3) Defect fix, patch, review.
> (4) Defect verify/close.
> For some rules (e.g. Severity/Priority), we may point to a place with
> general rules defined. For some rules specific to 3.5 (e.g. Version, Target
> Milestone, Flags), we should write them down in the release planning wiki.
> After we defined the rules, QE team can help to define some shared queries
> for us to get the project status and todo list.

to define and build a common understanding would definitely help all
involved parties to track issues and get a better understanding about
our releases and what goes in them.

> 2. Iteration and Milestone builds
> Since, as discussed, 3.5 release is likely to last for 6~9 months, I think
> it will be good for us to try the iterative development mode, and deliver
> milestone builds regularly. The milestone builds are dev snapshot builds,
> not formal release, but contains new bug fixes and enhancements implemented
> till the last iteration, and verified to be relatively stable in quality by
> QE team with a small regression test suite. And the milestone builds can be
> announced to external for people's try out the new enhancement works,
> provide feedback and report issues. And internally, it can help us to
> measure the quality regularly, and avoid big quality deviation.
> Since we are open community and many of us are volunteers working on AOO
> with their spare time, it is unlikely for us to apply strict agile
> discipline. So I think the process can be some thing like below:
> (1) Define the iterations of 4 weeks or 1 month (or any better
> suggestion?), announce the timelines in wiki.

a monthly milestone build sound reasonable to me and we have our nightly
builds to review fixes more frequently.

> (2) 1 week before the iteration, a milestone branch will be created. QE
> will do 1 week regression test on it. Dev will fix critical defects found
> in this branch. Then all the fixes in this milestone branch will be back to
> 3.5 trunk.

it sounds like a tough but good plan if we can achieve it. Definitely
worth a try from my perspective.

> (3) As a developer, it will be welcome if you can target your work to an
> iteration. But if you can not finish it before the milestone branch created
> (e.g. you are working on an enhancement that will take 2 weeks, and you
> just implement 80% by that time), means you can not deliver in this
> iteration, then you just keep your work in your branch, and deliver it to
> 3.5 trunk in the next iteration.

Taking into account that we all want a stable and good product I think
this is a valid approach and the next iteration is not too far away. And
by the way it's always good to split bigger tasks in smaller better
maintainable chunks if possible.

I would support such an approach and think we should try it with 3.5. We
can adapt it later on when see demand to change or to improve things...


View raw message