Volodya, Vladimir Prus wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Aug 02 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
We actually had examples of such proactive release management in past, and it worked good, but it's clearly time consuming. So one possible solution is to
For one thing it does not scale. The more important part that you are missing is: We have zero leverage over library developers. Let me repeat this: We have ZERO LEVERAGE over library developers. Any approach that relies on people doing things when asked is doomed.
1. Document the process. 2. Distribute it in time -- for example if we have a single 'development' branch, we can record all regressions that appear on the branch and demand that they are fixed in a month, or the offending commit reverted. 3. Distribute it over people -- instead of having one release manager doing all the work, we can have "bug masters" that will focus on regressions in a subset of platforms, or subset of libraries.
There were many documented and distributed processes in the past. Nobody reads the FM. And to be honest I can't even blame people. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org