Planning Next Release
Hi all, I'd like to test the waters for the last week of June -- let's say Monday, June 28 -- being the target date for the next major release, which I am volunteering to manage. Correspondingly, June 21 or so would be a branch-for-release date, by which everything should be in CVS and in the releasable shape. What is a "releasable shape" is a separate question I'd like to postpone for now, but basically the proposed target date implies that the for all the new stuff to get into release it'd have to be in the CVS by the middle of June -- which gives us about two months to prepare/finish things up. How does this sound for everybody? Any objections/adjustments to the dates? -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
I'd like to test the waters for the last week of June -- let's say Monday, June 28 -- being the target date for the next major release, which I am volunteering to manage. Correspondingly, June 21 or so would be a branch-for-release date, by which everything should be in CVS and in the releasable shape.
I think we should try and allow a larger period of time to fix the regression tests. I suggest we branch for instance 1 month before the release, and then we restrict the branch only to the patches which stabilize the regression tests (no new features allowed there). Plus, the trunk is free for new features, and development is not stalled. -- Giovanni Bajo
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: [ planning a release ]
How does this sound for everybody? Any objections/adjustments to the dates?
I'll likely be very busy in June. There is a chance I won't be able to run the Linux based regression tests for at least two weeks during that month. Regards, m
Martin,
[ planning a release ]
How does this sound for everybody? Any objections/adjustments to the dates?
I'll likely be very busy in June. There is a chance I won't be able to run the Linux based regression tests for at least two weeks during that month.
Thanks for the heads up. We can move the release date a week or two later, if that doesn't come into a conflict with somebody else's schedule. On a side note, it would be really nice to have more people to run regressions for the Linux platform, as schedule clashes like this are inevitable from time to time. Any volunteers? -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
Martin,
[ planning a release ]
How does this sound for everybody? Any objections/adjustments to the dates?
I'll likely be very busy in June. There is a chance I won't be able to run the Linux based regression tests for at least two weeks during that month.
Thanks for the heads up. We can move the release date a week or two later, if that doesn't come into a conflict with somebody else's schedule.
On a side note, it would be really nice to have more people to run regressions for the Linux platform, as schedule clashes like this are inevitable from time to time. Any volunteers?
I think I may be able to do it. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
At 10:46 AM 4/5/2004, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
I'd like to test the waters for the last week of June -- let's say Monday, June 28 -- being the target date for the next major release, which I am volunteering to manage.
Thanks Aleksey! That's good news. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
Correspondingly, June 21 or so would be a branch-for-release date, by which everything should be in CVS and in the releasable shape.
If past experience is any guide, quite a bit more time is needed between branch-for-release and the actual release. That being said, we do need to exercise more discipline to ensure changes are committed to CVS well before branch-for-release. CVS is in pretty good shape at the moment in terms of regressions against 1.31.0. One thing Boost developers can do to make Aleksey's job easier is to check regression results carefully after making any changes, and fixing regressions right away rather than waiting for branch-for-release. Thanks, --Beman
Beman Dawes writes:
At 10:46 AM 4/5/2004, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Correspondingly, June 21 or so would be a branch-for-release date, by which everything should be in CVS and in the releasable shape.
If past experience is any guide, quite a bit more time is needed between branch-for-release and the actual release.
Supposedly "the releasable shape" would require no additional fixes besides dealing with artifacts of branching itself, if any, but considering that people also need some time to try out release candidate(s), I think you are right. I'll post a detailed release plan for discussion sometime next week.
That being said, we do need to exercise more discipline to ensure changes are committed to CVS well before branch-for-release.
Early branching might help to inforce that, since it's more work for a developer to check in "late" changes. Hmm, the idea is growing on me. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
participants (6)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
Douglas Paul Gregor -
Giovanni Bajo -
Martin Wille