[Geoserver-devel] GeoServer release plan, a possible error

Hi,
I'm afraid I probably made a mistake when laying down the release dates for
GeoServer and GeoTools under the time boxed release model here:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GeoTools+and+GeoServer+release+schedule

The model was foreseeing 4 months open development, 2 months hardening, and
then the release, with RC starting to get out at the end of the 6-th month and
gettingout every two weeks until we were done.

However the above timetable had only 3 months of open development, and we
missed the first beta in december because of lack of volounteers.

Hum... if we follow the current timetable, next month will be RC, and
if we do a couple
of those, we'll have 2.3.0 final right at the end of the 6 months cycle.
Not bad, ad the cycle repeats itself two times in a year this way.

Or... we can do another beta next month, release the first RC in two months, and
probably have the final in three months

Tangential topic, branching off, the time boxed relase model had a branch off
by the second beta, but I agree with other people that having a trunk
always open
is probably better

Opinions?

Cheers
Andrea

--

Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for
more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

The other thread was conducive about always having master open for business. So on that our path is clear.

Despite my troubles this week, the scripts make punting out a release much faster. I also hear the wish for a longer development window?

How about doing the release candidates 2 weeks apart in a mad dash to the finish?


Jody Garnett

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 9:23 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:

Hi,
I’m afraid I probably made a mistake when laying down the release dates for
GeoServer and GeoTools under the time boxed release model here:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GeoTools+and+GeoServer+release+schedule

The model was foreseeing 4 months open development, 2 months hardening, and
then the release, with RC starting to get out at the end of the 6-th month and
gettingout every two weeks until we were done.

However the above timetable had only 3 months of open development, and we
missed the first beta in december because of lack of volounteers.

Hum… if we follow the current timetable, next month will be RC, and
if we do a couple
of those, we’ll have 2.3.0 final right at the end of the 6 months cycle.
Not bad, ad the cycle repeats itself two times in a year this way.

Or… we can do another beta next month, release the first RC in two months, and
probably have the final in three months

Tangential topic, branching off, the time boxed relase model had a branch off
by the second beta, but I agree with other people that having a trunk
always open
is probably better

Opinions?

Cheers
Andrea

Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for
more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it



Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only – learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d


Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

I would like a 6 month cycle like Ubuntu does it currently. As a result we have 2 releases each year.

Cheers
Christian

2013/1/24 Jody <jody.garnett@anonymised.com>

The other thread was conducive about always having master open for business. So on that our path is clear.

Despite my troubles this week, the scripts make punting out a release much faster. I also hear the wish for a longer development window?

How about doing the release candidates 2 weeks apart in a mad dash to the finish?


Jody Garnett

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 9:23 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:

Hi,
I’m afraid I probably made a mistake when laying down the release dates for
GeoServer and GeoTools under the time boxed release model here:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GeoTools+and+GeoServer+release+schedule

The model was foreseeing 4 months open development, 2 months hardening, and
then the release, with RC starting to get out at the end of the 6-th month and
gettingout every two weeks until we were done.

However the above timetable had only 3 months of open development, and we
missed the first beta in december because of lack of volounteers.

Hum… if we follow the current timetable, next month will be RC, and
if we do a couple
of those, we’ll have 2.3.0 final right at the end of the 6 months cycle.
Not bad, ad the cycle repeats itself two times in a year this way.

Or… we can do another beta next month, release the first RC in two months, and
probably have the final in three months

Tangential topic, branching off, the time boxed relase model had a branch off
by the second beta, but I agree with other people that having a trunk
always open
is probably better

Opinions?

Cheers
Andrea

Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for
more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it



Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only – learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d


Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.comge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel


Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only – learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d


Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.comsts.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jody <jody.garnett@anonymised.com> wrote:

The other thread was conducive about always having master open for business.
So on that our path is clear.

Despite my troubles this week, the scripts make punting out a release much
faster. I also hear the wish for a longer development window?

Hum... if trunk is always open for business we don't really need a longer
dev window imho.

How about doing the release candidates 2 weeks apart in a mad dash to the
finish?

That is the idea in the time boxed release model anyways, RC are released
2 weeks apart from each other

Cheers
Andrea

--

Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for
more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

On 25/01/2013 1:41 a.m., Christian Mueller wrote:

I would like a 6 month cycle like Ubuntu does it currently. As a
result we have 2 releases each year.

Perhaps I should get some clarification on what is meant by "release"?
What I would like to see is fairly frequent bug-fix releases but perhaps
more delayed "new feature" releases. 2 a year seems a little infrequent
to me. I could us using nightly builds with all the possible issues,
simply because we desperately want a feature and we arent prepared to
wait 4-5 months for it.

Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential. If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us. Do not copy or disclose the contents.

Phil, there is a grey area: proven functionality can be backported to the stable branch once tested on the development branch. There are rules about what can be backported.

Two-per year might seem slow for new-feature releases, but it is much faster than the old ad hoc when-its-ready schedule. The problem with releasing faster is that we only have the resources to support one stable branch. If we have new-feature releases more often, the stable branch will change to quickly to be considered stable.

Popular and tested features that do not change the API are often backported to stable. Stable bug-fix releases often contain new features.

On 25/01/13 03:41, Phil Scadden wrote:

Perhaps I should get some clarification on what is meant by "release"?
What I would like to see is fairly frequent bug-fix releases but perhaps
more delayed "new feature" releases. 2 a year seems a little infrequent
to me. I could us using nightly builds with all the possible issues,
simply because we desperately want a feature and we arent prepared to
wait 4-5 months for it.

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Andrea Aime
<andrea.aime@anonymised.com>wrote:

Hi,
I'm afraid I probably made a mistake when laying down the release dates for
GeoServer and GeoTools under the time boxed release model here:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GeoTools+and+GeoServer+release+schedule

The model was foreseeing 4 months open development, 2 months hardening, and
then the release, with RC starting to get out at the end of the 6-th month
and
gettingout every two weeks until we were done.

However the above timetable had only 3 months of open development, and we
missed the first beta in december because of lack of volounteers.

Hum... if we follow the current timetable, next month will be RC, and
if we do a couple
of those, we'll have 2.3.0 final right at the end of the 6 months cycle.
Not bad, ad the cycle repeats itself two times in a year this way.

So if we stick with this we get one less month of hardening? Fine by me I
like the idea of shooting for a final release every 6 months rather than
being at a release candidate by the end of the 6 month period.

Or... we can do another beta next month, release the first RC in two
months, and
probably have the final in three months

Tangential topic, branching off, the time boxed relase model had a branch
off
by the second beta, but I agree with other people that having a trunk
always open
is probably better

Agreed.

Opinions?

Cheers
Andrea

--

Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for
more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.