[Squeakfoundation]3.5 release timing (was Re: Outstanding 3.4
bugs?)
Ian Piumarta
ian.piumarta at inria.fr
Mon Mar 10 16:34:04 CET 2003
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
>
> I'll just raise again my objections to the idea that it is possible to
> do any sensible beta in only a couple of weeks and any plausible gamma
> ditto.
I agree with Tim. In fact I think I would generalise this to say thay
imposing a hard timeline on any [potentially unbounded] activity is a
risky business. Why not plan the release cycle around the notion of
outstanding unfixed bugs, rather than on hard deadlines? That way the
_state_ of the system drives the releases, rather than vice-versa.
Last wek somebody mentioned bug tracking system. If we had one, with a
notion of "critical bugs", "invonveniences", and "cosmetic fixes" for
example, then something like this (starting from the last stable release)
might make sense:
PAR
SEQ
- decide what new stuff wants to be in (or taken *out* of the system
and put into a SM package) in the next release
- make a new image and tag it as "alpha"
- invite all concerned to hack on the changes
- when things have settled down, tag the image as beta and
make it available for download for anyone who wants to
help with beta testing
- wait for the bug reports to come flooding in ;)
2: - fix bugs (of any and all priorities)
- while (critical bugs != 0) sleep(several days); goto 2
- tag the image as "gamma" or "release candidate" or
whatever, and then announce it for public consumption
on all the lists and invite each and every Squeaker
to give it a go
- sleep (a week or two)
3: - while (critical bugs remain): fix bugs; post updates;
sleep(a few days); goto 3
- tag the image as final and release it
ENDSEQ
SEQ
- collect new feature requests for the next stable release
ENDSEQ
ENDPAR
Ian
More information about the Squeakfoundation
mailing list