1.9.0-beta1 do we need it?

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

I'm still working on the CHANGES file for 1.9, it's taking longer than I
anticipated since it's been roughly 9 months since we last did a major update
(and I forgot how long that one took me).

The original thinking for a beta was to get something moving while we finished
up a few things we knew we wanted in 1.9 (svn info --show-item, external
pinning).  But I'm starting to think these things are close enough that given
the time it's taking me to finish up CHANGES we may be ready for a rc1 as soon
as those are done.

Thoughts?

Re: 1.9.0-beta1 do we need it?

[Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:37:16PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> There is one rather large-ish reason to not roll a beta: our release
> process isn't exactly automated, there's a lot of manual fiddling
> involved for the RM.

It used to be much worse! These days release.py automates most things.

> It would be nice if someone volunteered to help Ben
> with the releases, at least we could split these 4 in to 2x2.

I can do that.

Re: 1.9.0-beta1 do we need it?

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 25.02.2015 12:30, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Ben Reser <ben@reser.org
> <ma...@reser.org>> wrote:
>
>     I'm still working on the CHANGES file for 1.9, it's taking longer
>     than I
>     anticipated since it's been roughly 9 months since we last did a
>     major update
>     (and I forgot how long that one took me).
>
>     The original thinking for a beta was to get something moving while
>     we finished
>     up a few things we knew we wanted in 1.9 (svn info --show-item,
>     external
>     pinning).  But I'm starting to think these things are close enough
>     that given
>     the time it's taking me to finish up CHANGES we may be ready for a
>     rc1 as soon
>     as those are done.
>
>
> I think we should have a beta as soon as feasible instead of
> waiting for a rc some time later and here is why:
>
> * Keep momentum in the 1.9 release process.
> * Enable / trigger people to get their 1.9.x build setup finalized
>
> * Take off some of the pressure to complete & merge the
>   two candidate feature branches.
> * Don't rush the "admin" work either, e.g. API review.
>
> * Concerning the extra effort, we will release 1.7.x, 1.8.x and
>   1.9rc within a short window of time. Adding 1.9.0beta doesn't
>   seem to make it much worse.

+1 for all of the above reasons.

There is one rather large-ish reason to not roll a beta: our release
process isn't exactly automated, there's a lot of manual fiddling
involved for the RM. It would be nice if someone volunteered to help Ben
with the releases, at least we could split these 4 in to 2x2.

-- Brane

Re: 1.9.0-beta1 do we need it?

[Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:

> I'm still working on the CHANGES file for 1.9, it's taking longer than I
> anticipated since it's been roughly 9 months since we last did a major
> update
> (and I forgot how long that one took me).
>
> The original thinking for a beta was to get something moving while we
> finished
> up a few things we knew we wanted in 1.9 (svn info --show-item, external
> pinning).  But I'm starting to think these things are close enough that
> given
> the time it's taking me to finish up CHANGES we may be ready for a rc1 as
> soon
> as those are done.
>

I think we should have a beta as soon as feasible instead of
waiting for a rc some time later and here is why:

* Keep momentum in the 1.9 release process.
* Enable / trigger people to get their 1.9.x build setup finalized

* Take off some of the pressure to complete & merge the
  two candidate feature branches.
* Don't rush the "admin" work either, e.g. API review.

* Concerning the extra effort, we will release 1.7.x, 1.8.x and
  1.9rc within a short window of time. Adding 1.9.0beta doesn't
  seem to make it much worse.

-- Stefan^2.