[Squeakfoundation]re: release process (was "Shrinking alpha
danielv at netvision.net.il
danielv at netvision.net.il
Sun Mar 23 14:20:46 CET 2003
[Faster turn around needed, at least for small things]
Yup, I agree.
Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 03:05 AM, Craig Latta wrote:
> >> A few questions it should answer -
> >> * How do we know what the community will come up with beforehand?
> > We don't need to read minds. We can just decide that features get
> > *scheduled* before they get included. E.g., if you come up with some
> > whizzy new feature during the 3.6 cycle, you can suggest it for a
> > future
> > feature schedule (3.7 or later).
> > Of course there will be some deviation from the ideal. For example,
> > critical fixes often get special dispensation (inclusion into the
> > current schedule instead of waiting for a future schedule). In general,
> > though, I think it's good to encourage planning the next several
> > releases. In particular, at any given time there are usually large
> > features (e.g., changing the format of compiled methods) that one can
> > imagine happening in the next major release as opposed to the next
> > minor
> > release.
> This sounds generally good.
> The only tweak I would make is that the number of items which get
> "special dispensation" (inclusion into the current schedule) could be
> fairly large, as long as they are small fixes/enhancements without
> major ramifications. This would include both critical and minor fixes
> harvested from the sqfixes page, and also minor enhancements. (During
> the alpha stage of course.) We want to have a reasonably quick
> turnaround on these smaller items; postponing them to the next release
> as a general rule would be too long.
> As an example, I can imagine that several dozen bugfixes may go into
> 3.6 without being in the plan. A bugfix with major ramifications
> (which is arguably more than just a "bugfix") should be part of a
> scheduled plan, though.
> Perhaps one way to address this is to just have "miscellaneous bug
> fixing" or similar as part of each plan/schedule. Eh, that's sort of
> cheesy. ;-) Although there may be times when we want to include in our
> plan that we want to hold off on minor fixes/enhancements for a couple
> of weeks before some massive change is made, for example.
> Another thing that we can do is, when reviewing items on sqfixes, if a
> submission seems like too large/widespread a change for inclusion in
> the current schedule, we can add a comment/opinion stating that it
> needs to be discussed further on this list and should be part of a plan
> for a future release.
> - Doug Way
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation