[haiku-development] Re: Haiku R1A4 Postmortem

  • From: Alexander von Gluck IV <kallisti5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:32:34 -0600

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:30:34 +0100
pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 2012-12-07 at 03:19:32 [+0100], Alexander von Gluck 
> <kallisti5@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to see a fixed release cycle. (every 6 months / 1 year an
> > alpha/beta is released, etc)
> 
> I think we should not enforce that too far. 1 year for now the trunk
> may be in very unstable state, or maybe in 3 month the package
> management work will be ready for a release and we may want to do it
> as soon as possible.

Yeah, more of a 'best practice'. I'm not writing it down anywhere :)

> I will (again) suggest a different strategy. We should aim for yearly 
> release (that sounds enough to me, every 6 month seems too fast). As
> we've seen with Alpha 4, this requires some anticipation so we should
> start worrying about the release long before the scheduled date.
> 
> Here's my personal wishlist for the next release :
>  * IMAP fixes
>  * Package Manager
> 
> Once these are in, we could almost tag the release immediately and
> release it.

I completely agree... those are the biggies. (especially the package
management). Once those are in it may be a good time to release
the first beta as we will be pretty close to 'feature complete' :)

> The lifetime of the release branch should be reduced as much as
> possible. This reduces the work on merging and makes most things
> simpler (no need to switch the nightlies, no worry of people
> continuing to work on trunk instead of testing the branch).

Yup, the R1A4 cycle was *way* too long.

> > 
> > Once these topics are discussed, I'd like to put them into a 'hard'
> > pdf release guide for future release coordinators...
> 
> I put the notes from Alpha 3 in the "release cookbook" page. Notes
> from Alpha 2 are still in the "Sandbox" page, waiting for a merge. I
> guess we should add more notes from Alpha 4 as well, and perhaps make
> it sound less flexible as well.

I've been working on the mentioned PDF.. here is the first draft:
  http://goo.gl/Vg7zv

Thoughts?


 -- Alex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Other related posts: