Re: 3.5 release timing

Craig Latta wrote:
> 
> Hi Doug--
> 
> > We would need to put some limits on the number and kind of bugfixes
> > that are accepted...
> 
>         Indeed; ideally a release version has a list of scheduled features
> attached to it *before* any work starts. I think we should strive for
> that. I think "Squeak 3.5" should evoke a very concrete list of changes,
> as opposed to merely a guideline about the kind of change that will be
> accepted. The latter just invites last-minute submissions, dragging out
> the release process.

Generally agreed.  If this were a "normal" release, we wouldn't be able to
predict all of the many bugfixes which would typically go into the release,
but a list of the major new features/enhancements is something we should try
to settle on beforehand, yes.

With 3.5 though, since bugfixes are the only content of this short release, it
might not be a bad idea to have a list of proposed bugfixes beforehand.

(I think in the case of 3.4 being released, things were generally a bit
chaotic, and I just wanted to get 3.4 out the door before worrying too much
about 3.5. :-)  But that will have to change for future releases.)

>         Also, ideally, the naming, feature-scheduling and timing for a
> particular version is finalized by the time of the previous version's
> release. At the latest, the discussion is finalized during the previous
> gamma (often having the useful side-effect of appeasing those whose
> not-quite-critical-enough submissions were deferred :). So, for example,
> I hope we can finalize the schedule for <the-release-after-3.5> by the
> time we release 3.5.

Agreed.

> In fact, I'd even go so far as to make the next
> release schedule an official feature of each release. :)
> 
>         If the 3.5 schedule were up to me...
> 
>         3.5 would include the project-writing fix, the class-builder fix, the
> next release schedule, and nothing else. I would set a release date of
> the next first-Friday (4 April), as it seems like a short cycle (since
> the principle writing seems to be finished).

I like this idea.  

It would limit the release to the couple of fixes which were the real reason
for the short bugfix release in the first place (making the short release
considerably safer), and it would shorten the 3.5 release to even less than 1
month, allowing us to move on with the next "normal" release sooner.

And it still buys us some time to discuss the content of the post-3.5 release
(and get a few other process issues worked out), so that we have a release
plan in place for the post-3.5 release before 3.5 is done.

> First Fridays are simple
> and memorable, and moving faster than monthly is both more difficult for
> the community to keep straight and not really feasible from a labor
> perspective. If possible, make sure the release is available by the
> stroke of midnight at the beginning of release day, GMT, to avoid
> timezone confusion (no one can say it's late :). If a release slips, go
> to the next first Friday; it's just simpler that way.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, we could try that as a general rule.

> I wouldn't worry
> about having lots of small releases, you won't run out of minor numbers.
> :)  (E.g., the next minor release after 3.9 is 3.10, etc.)

About the only thing that's somewhat debatable here is whether this next
release (assuming a short bugfix release) should be called 3.5 or 3.4.1 as
Goran suggested, since for most practical purposes it is a "patch" release.

But the Squeak tradition has been to avoid tertiary release numbers (3.2.1
being an abberation), and most people have been calling it 3.5 so far, so I
wouldn't mind just calling it 3.5.

- Doug Way
From [email protected] Tue Mar 11 00:34:31 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 12500 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 00:34:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucy.riskmetrics.com) (12.3.62.14)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 00:34:31 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com (w018.z064003232.det-mi.dsl.cnc.net
	[64.3.232.18]) by lucy.riskmetrics.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet
	Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id GCTF8RC4; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:27:44 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:34:07 -0500
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation 
 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]re: 3.5 release timing
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:34:31 -0000


Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> This is all fine, except that in most cases, we don't know or control
> what will be in a release in advance. The most we can do is try to
> influence it, by explaining what is important in our opinions and why.
> 
> I think it's more practical for us to be flexible about the content, but
> harsh about the timing/standards required for getting in.

It's a balance, but I tend to agree that having (roughly) regularly timed
releases, and then adjusting content to fit the schedule, seems like a good
approach.  So the timing is the more important of the two.  (I don't have an
entrenched opinion about this yet, though. :-) )

But we should still have a proposed list of content ready at the beginning of
a release cycle, as Craig suggested.

> I'm starting to agree, though, that what grand plans we do make, we
> should announce before the previous release is out.
> 
> About the contents of this specific release, I agree the project fix and
> the class builder fix are desirable (and are probably practical, since
> we have candidate fixes for both), but wouldn't reject out of hand other
> fixes posted if they are properly reviewed, tested, and very simple.
> Also, I think the font license non-issues should be smoked out finally
> by pulling in some apple-font removing package from SM.

Hmm, I like the idea of just having the two fixes, and the extra-short
release.  At this point, I think that removing the Apple fonts should probably
wait until the post-3.5 release.  (It's only a few weeks away anyway...)

I think the furthest I would go in considering other fixes is that, if another
bug comes in that generates as much real concern as, say, the project-writing
bug, and a good fix is available within the first week of the 3.5 cycle, then
we could consider that.  But we'd have to discuss it specifically on the SqF
list here, whether it was worth adding at that point.  IMHO the "default"
course of action is that we only include the two fixes.

I realize that this temporarily limits the usefulness of the new harvesting
system on the gsug/sqfixes page, but I think we could address that by coming
out with a 3.6alpha branch soon.  (Yes I know we haven't officially decided
that the next release will be called 3.6 and not something like 4.0, but for
the sake of argument let's call it 3.6.)

So, let's assume we go ahead with the current plan for 3.5 (only the two
bugfixes unless another major bug comes up, release on April 4th).  We can
discuss it a bit more, but I'd like to announce this on squeak-dev sometime
tomorrow as planned.

Then, I could harvest the two bugfixes and put them in the 3.5alpha update
stream.  Then, soon after that (maybe a few days), we might as well move 3.5
straight to beta.  At that point, we could offer the usual choice in the
update stream for whether people want to move to 3.5beta or join the new
3.6alpha update stream.

With 3.6alpha open, even while 3.5beta is still around, we could start
harvesting the fixes on sqfixes into 3.6alpha and see some of the faster
turnaround and "visibility" that we've been hoping to achieve.

> I would like to enlist at least all guides to help in making QA tags
> widely used. This requires, on the one hand, being the "bad people" and
> requiring more QA tags for submissions that don't have them, and OTOH,
> when review tags are added, doing our own review and highlighting what
> isn't good enough, to clarify what the tags actually mean.
> 
> Being demanding is sometimes considered neither fun nor popular. but I
> submit to you that -
> A. it may not be popular, but it'll be far more popular than having a
> slow/ineffective feedback cycles.
> B. It CAN be a LOT of fun if you get in the right, nasty mood for it ;-)

Yes, I am going to start doing this soon. :-)

- Doug Way
From [email protected] Tue Mar 11 00:41:43 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 25707 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 00:41:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucy.riskmetrics.com) (12.3.62.14)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 00:41:43 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com (w018.z064003232.det-mi.dsl.cnc.net
	[64.3.232.18]) by lucy.riskmetrics.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet
	Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id GCTF8RDP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:34:56 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:41:24 -0500
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation 
 <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]Re: 3.6 release plans ( Was: re: 3.5 release timing
	)
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:41:43 -0000


> Brent Vukmer wrote:
> 
> In case the 3.6 release plan becomes a feature in the 3.5 release, here are
> few initial ideas for 3.6:
> --removing Balloon3D
> --removing Celeste
> --removing the "Worlds of Squeak" project
> 
> The Welcome window in 3.6 could have "quick-install-from-SqueakMap" active
> links for each of the packages/projects that is removed.

This stuff all sounds pretty reasonable, and I'm guessing we'd probably want
more removals and possibly other features beyond this.

However, I'm personally putting off discussing proposed content for the
post-3.5 release just for a few days, so that we can get the 3.5 plan
straightened out.  I imagine that once we start discussing this, it might
generate a *lot* of email, and I think it might be good to wait a few days
before opening the floodgates. ;-)

- Doug Way
From [email protected] Tue Mar 11 01:01:11 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 28721 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 01:01:11 -0000
Received: from mailout.whidbey.net (209.166.64.124)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 01:01:11 -0000
Received: from [209.166.72.234] (helo=ned)
	by mail5.whidbey.net with esmtp (Exim 4.12)	id 18sY8a-0006UZ-00
	for [email protected];
	Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:01:01 -0800
From: Ned Konz <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]re: 3.5 release timing
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:00:26 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
X-Image-URL: http://bike-nomad.com/nedicon.jpg 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 01:01:11 -0000

On Monday 10 March 2003 04:34 pm, Doug Way wrote:
> Hmm, I like the idea of just having the two fixes, and the
> extra-short release.  At this point, I think that removing the
> Apple fonts should probably wait until the post-3.5 release.  (It's
> only a few weeks away anyway...)

Are we going to ignore those other changes that were done for the 
Squeakland plugin and were posted here? Presumably they've been 
tested already and are appropriate.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE