Release management thoughts for Dapper Drake

[Florian Zeitz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeff Waugh schrieb:
> <quote who="Florian Zeitz">
> 
>>This is what is done right now. With this concept you release for Desktop
>>with some minor bugs (which are OK for Desktop, but unaceptable for
>>enterprise users) and than include the normal bufixes making it enterprise
>>ready, within a certain time.
> 
> 
> Right, but that's *not* what is done right now. Realistically, taking six
> more months of branched stabilisation would require far more invasive
> changes on the released branch, and a branched strategy would require far
> more work across both branches... Not desireable at all.
Actually I noticed that a second after I send the mail.
> 
> 
>>I might also be okay with your concept if the components I care about are
>>brought to date (because they belong to a goal, or an exception depends on
>>them), but that's not really the way I want to get what I want.
> 
> 
> We have a slightly different goal for this release, so we get to think about
> the problem slightly differently. I am sure we will update much of what we
> ship, but we will do it 100% *knowingly* in each case, instead of just being
> hammered by the general churn.
This is what I wanted to hear, you made it sound like "We are not even
considering updating anything if it does not belong to a goal for the
next release and won't update a lot for that matter", till now. And that
is certainly not what anybody wants I think.
> 
> 
>>3. Try to be both at the same time (Your concept might work for this, but
>>current user base might rebel and Ivans idea should work, but is not
>>really possible right now, because of the promises you made)
> 
> 
> Let's nuke this idea before it goes any further -> following this strategy
> will not make our current user base rebel. I'm pretty sure my first email
> was clear about the upload policy -> we'd still accept feature goals, fixes
> and so on. If a few extremely volatile, impatient users find it offensive
> that we refuse to automatically sync new versions of, say, core-utils, I
> don't think we should be too concerned. :-)
You know I was exagerating and you now I was not talking about
core-utils, don't you? ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDUSWY0JXcdjR+9YQRAgBZAKDMekDPrhrlqqVTEYBhGBhZ1/PfqACZAf23
EhzRENi5vq4VszOCZHX1NYU=
=ZxNE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----