Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...
Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
[1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa
On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.
Moritz
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the
sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.
While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to
day release management.
Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero).
The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to
do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs.
Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months.
Markus
IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable
response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a
fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or
used as an argument for STFU later).
Just my 0.02,
Māris.
2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the
sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to
day release management.
Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero).The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to
do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs.
Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months.Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
A statement : "if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date"
may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them.
Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on?
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
Helena
On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Maris Nartiss wrote:
IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable
response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a
fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or
used as an argument for STFU later).Just my 0.02,
Māris.2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the
sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to
day release management.
Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero).The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to
do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs.
Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months.Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu> wrote:
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
A statement : "if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date"
may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them.
Perhaps that should be added to the text.
While doing some other finetuning:
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6
I found that a "tbd" is still there.
Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on?
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
In my view the document is not ready yet (see above).
Markus
I agree. Even if we cannot get time to look at it, we can at least check in and say that.
Michael
____________________
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science
Arizona State University
voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu
On Dec 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu> wrote:
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
A statement : "if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date"
may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them.Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on?
RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure – GRASS GISHelena
On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Maris Nartiss wrote:
IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable
response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a
fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or
used as an argument for STFU later).Just my 0.02,
Māris.2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the
sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to
day release management.
Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero).The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to
do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs.
Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months.Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
grass-dev Info Page_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
grass-dev Info Page_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
grass-psc Info Page
Hi all,
2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6
I did cosmetics changes [1].
I found that a "tbd" is still there.
I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch
for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that?
Thanks for feedback in advance, Martin
[1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=12&old_version=7
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa
On 06/01/15 11:25, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi all,
2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6
I did cosmetics changes [1].
I found that a "tbd" is still there.
I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch
for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that?
+1
Moritz
Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.
Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc.
Basically who is responsible to recall all to the respect of the mentioned time-frame.
Maxi
Il giorno Wed Jan 07 2015 at 2:43:33 AM Scott Mitchell <smitch@me.com> ha scritto:
Since I’m in there anyway editing a couple of minor grammatical fixes, I’ve deleted that sentence based on this latest exchange plus the fact that it makes sense to me. But I’m doing so in the comfort of knowing that my edits can be easily reverted, so don’t hesitate if there’s reason.
On Jan 6, 2015, at 05:35, Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
On 06/01/15 11:25, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi all,
2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6
I did cosmetics changes [1].
I found that a “tbd” is still there.
I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch
for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that?+1
Moritz
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?
For this RFC? Yes. But I think we are pretty close now.
I did cosmetics changes [1].
[1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=12&old_version=7
Thanks
I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch
for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that?
I *fully* agree.
Markus
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Massimiliano Cannata
<massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch> wrote:
Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.
I agree. I updated its date now and expanded "RC" in the beginning.
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
Last doubts:
* Step1: .... "The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager)
then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support
for this proposal. "
--> this "sufficient" is still a bit elastic. If one developer is
against it, others in favour, it is fine to start? Leave it to
democratical debates? Just to be sure.
Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is
responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc.
That's the release manager. But I added that now (looks more dramatic
than it is, trac doesn't highlight well this time).:
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=16&old_version=13
... makes sense?
Markus
Hi,
I read the document and support it,
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
Last doubts:
- Step1: … "The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager)
then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support
for this proposal. "→ this “sufficient” is still a bit elastic. If one developer is
against it, others in favour, it is fine to start? Leave it to
democratical debates? Just to be sure.
To me this makes sense, because it’s a good thing that the release manager should have the chance to make a decision on a case by case basis. I’m more in favor of do-ocracy rather than democratical debate 
but it’s just my opinion
Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is
responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc.That’s the release manager. But I added that now (looks more dramatic
than it is, trac doesn’t highlight well this time).:http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=16&old_version=13
… makes sense?
+1
Thank you
Margherita
–
Best regards,
Dr. Margherita DI LEO
Scientific / technical project officer
European Commission - DG JRC
Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES)
Via Fermi, 2749
I-21027 Ispra (VA) - Italy - TP 261
Tel. +39 0332 78 3600
margherita.di-leo@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstance be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Massimiliano Cannata
<massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch> wrote:Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.
I agree. I updated its date now and expanded "RC" in the beginning.
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
Last doubts:
* Step1: .... "The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager)
then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support
for this proposal. "--> this "sufficient" is still a bit elastic. If one developer is
against it, others in favour, it is fine to start? Leave it to
democratical debates? Just to be sure.
I changed "to decide" to "and decides" so it is more clear that it is at the discretion of the Project/Release manager to decide whether there is sufficient support.
If Project manager cannot decide by himself (e.g. he/she is not sure), he/she can always call for a vote by PSC.
Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is
responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc.That's the release manager. But I added that now (looks more dramatic
than it is, trac doesn't highlight well this time).:http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diff&version=16&old_version=13
... makes sense?
I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document and I agree with the document.
Helena
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Dear PSC,
2015-01-08 4:02 GMT+01:00 Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu>:
I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document and I agree with the document.
thanks a lot! BTW, is there any open issue? If not, we could probably
move on towards voting?
Martin
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear PSC,
2015-01-08 4:02 GMT+01:00 Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu>:
I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document and I agree with the document.
thanks a lot! BTW, is there any open issue? If not, we could probably
move on towards voting?
Yes I think so.
Following our new voting rules, after having called for vote
"Proposals are available for review for at least seven calendar days
before a vote can be closed" [1]
So, please take a last look at [2] so that we can eventually start
with the voting procedure.
Markus
[1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures
[2] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure (draft)