Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Let's make Source Mage not suck!

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Let's make Source Mage not suck!
  • Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:51:10 -0800

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Andrew wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +0000, Juuso Alasuutari wrote:
>> On Friday 05 January 2007 09:23, Thomas Orgis wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Then, let's get that stable-0.6 out and start the next cycle with a
>>> real schedule that is fulfilled (a month, two?).
>> So what would the optimal release interval be for us?
>
> I think the faster the better personally. I want to shoot for about two
> weeks. I think thats do-able. If it isnt then we're taking too
> many spells. Shorter cycles are better for two main reasons:
>
> 1) less time for test to change. This means fewer new bugs to fight per
> release, that lowers the overall complexity of the release. I think the
> complexity grows more than linearly with the number of bugs, so sooner is
> less work than later, even if the number of bugs introduced is the same.
>
> 2) The cycle length defines the maximum amount of time it takes for
> non-critical fixes get to stable (its bounded by 1 and 2 cycles). Inherent
> in the notion of a fixed stable is the consequence that bugs will be
> fixed in test, but not stable. I think all bugs fall along some scale of
> how long people are willing to wait for the fix to get in stable. If
> the cycle time exceeds this threshold then typically an integration is
> requested. So, the number of integration requests is directly proportional
> to the length of the release cycle. Shorter release cycles mean more
> "automatic" integrations.
>
> <aside>
> As time goes on I remember more details from the past. Previously we
> figured there would be a roughly constant list of supported spells
> (top 25% from ledger) and as the spells stablized the release cycle
> time would naturally get shorter. Each cycle would be shorter than the
> previous, and therefore have less code-churn, and therefore fewer bugs.
> Then eventually the cycle would reach some suitably short time-delta, and we
> could start adding spells. In other words, to start the process hold the
> list of spells constant and gradually decrease the cycle. The above
> approach instead holds the length of the cycle time constant and gradually
> increases the number of spells. Maybe that approach will work better for us.
> </aside>
>
>
>> We should agree on a time table and really stick to it. We should know in
>> advance when the next release will happen, and the one after that, and
>> when
>> the second release in 2009 happens. I don't mean automatically generating
>> a
>> tarball even if a major fix is in mid-commit, but you get the idea. I
>> don't
>> believe in forcing people, but having a set deadline is different. At
>> least
>> for me it's a good motivator, I don't know how others feel.
>
> I think we should try a couple cycles, tenatively w/ the 2 week time. We
> might not hit 2 weeks the first few cycles while we work the bugs out. So
> I dont want to set a formal time-table to stick to just yet. After a few
> cycles though, we'll have a better idea of how much work we can get done
> per cycle.
>
> Another idea I just had is that maybe the organizer of the release should
> rotate amongst the leads. The organizers role being to make sure things
> get done. They dont for example have to actually create/sign/upload
> the tarballs, but they should make sure that it happens in a timely
> manner. I'll do this one of course. I think there are advantages in
> rotating the responsibility, more people know directly how things ought to
> work, no one gets burned out, and its in the spirit of the "lead-team"
> idea.
>
> -Andrew

I think a two weak window should work for a limited number of spells.
Shall we start this timer this Sunday (January 7, 2007) for the current
stable-rc-0.6/stable-0.4 and in two weeks from then have a new
stable-rc-0.7 from test and a new stable-rc-0.5 from stable-rc-0.6?

- -sandalle

- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFnshOHXt9dKjv3WERCvpoAJ99rhrh+nnLtx2W40OcC/4RNtF8EQCfVDDS
s2WlI5BqMZlc4qNftND58uo=
=s0Jn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page