Re: AW: [DISCUSS] Release Strategy for future releases

[Julian Feinauer <j....@pragmaticminds.de>]

Hi all,

Just wanted to bump up this old thread [1] where we discussed about the release strategy.
We concluded that it would not be a good idea to have a higher release frequency but after graduation (to keep the pressure low on the IPMC).

Thus, I want to continue the discussion.
As we are pretty heavy users of PLC4X I would like to see regular releases with a  frequency of 1 – 2 months (at least for now, where a lot happens).

What are others opinions and thoughts?

Julian

On 2019/03/10 18:07:46, Julian Feinauer <j....@pragmaticminds.de>> wrote:
> Oh and what about some opc ua support for the 0.4.0 release (looking towards Mathias and Tim....)?>
>
>
>
> :)>
>
>
>
> Julian>
>
>
>
> Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------->
>
> Betreff: AW: [DISCUSS] Release Strategy for future releases>
>
> Von: Julian Feinauer>
>
> An: dev@plc4x.apache.org<ma...@plc4x.apache.org>>
>
> Cc:>
>
>
>
> Hi Tim,>
>
>
>
> Sounds good to extend the group of release managers.>
>
> I think there is already a release prepared in Jira but I agree to polish the Jira issues a bit and assign the release field so that we have an idea what we want to have in there upfront.>
>
>
>
> Julian>
>
>
>
> Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------->
>
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Strategy for future releases>
>
> Von: Tim Mitsch>
>
> An: dev@plc4x.apache.org<ma...@plc4x.apache.org>>
>
> Cc:>
>
>
>
> Hello everybody,>
>
>
>
> I'll agree with Chris as well as with Julian ... think lots of people are under heavy load in incubator so high release frequency won't be the best solution as long as we are an incubating project.>
>
> On the other hand we should take care about not releasing in too less frequency to make interested people more interested in what we're doing and make feature available as early as possible.>
>
> As already said ... I think we should create a more or less regular release-interval when we are graduated.>
>
>
>
> As I had a look on Julian doing 0.3.1 release procedure I think I can do the RM for next release which I think will be 0.4.0 (maybe end of April or beginning of may).>
>
> If there is nothing against it I'll start to prepare a feature list and opening a new topic on mailing-list for that as well as creating the regarding jira-tickets.>
>
>
>
> Best>
>
> Tim>
>
>
>
> Am 06.03.19, 21:55 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j....@pragmaticminds.de>>:>
>
>
>
>     Hey Otto,>
>
>
>
>     fair point. I think we should to decide a new release strategy. But if we consider to keep it as it is now we should not have to vote.>
>
>
>
>     Or?>
>
>
>
>     Julian>
>
>
>
>     Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------->
>
>     Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Strategy for future releases>
>
>     Von: Otto Fowler>
>
>     An: dev@plc4x.apache.org<ma...@plc4x.apache.org>,Christofer Dutz>
>
>     Cc:>
>
>
>
>     Shouldn’t you call an official vote for something like this?>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On March 6, 2019 at 15:29:18, Christofer Dutz (christofer.dutz@c-ware.de<ma...@c-ware.de>)>
>
>     wrote:>
>
>
>
>     Big +1 for that ;-)>
>
>
>
>     Chris>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Am 06.03.19, 21:26 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j....@pragmaticminds.de>>:>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Hi Chris,>
>
>
>
>     No offense. I agree that we should not stress those lovely people more than>
>
>     necessary.>
>
>     So we keep our aim on 0.4 (with whatever accumulates till then) for now and>
>
>     start regular releases when graduated.>
>
>
>
>     Is this a plan?>
>
>
>
>     Julian>
>
>
>
>     Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------->
>
>     Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Strategy for future releases>
>
>     Von: Christofer Dutz>
>
>     An: dev@plc4x.apache.org<ma...@plc4x.apache.org>>
>
>     Cc:>
>
>
>
>     Hi Julian,>
>
>
>
>     I would +1 this, but please have one thing in Mind ... every release we do>
>
>     requires us to check it (of course) ... but also we have to have people in>
>
>     the Incubator also validate these releases.>
>
>     Some people there are under heavy load and I would not like to increase>
>
>     this load too much.>
>
>
>
>     But how about starting with that as soon as we have left the incubator? I>
>
>     would really like that.>
>
>
>
>     Chris>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Am 06.03.19, 09:15 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j....@pragmaticminds.de>>:>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Hi all,>
>
>
>
>     perhaps some may find this email too early (as we are still in the process>
>
>     of doing a Release) but I want to ask / discuss about how we plan to do>
>
>     releases in the future.>
>
>     Up till now, they were were infrequent due to the early stage of the>
>
>     project but now I think we have stabilized well, we have stable APIs and>
>
>     mostly new features coming in.>
>
>     One problem we had most of the time was, that we had to work on “forked>
>
>     releases” because the last official release lacked (newer) features we>
>
>     needed.>
>
>     Thus, I suggest that we start to release more often or even on a regular>
>
>     schedule (like e.g. Calcite does it) to ship the new features soon.>
>
>     Also this could help us, to teach more people how to release / rm.>
>
>
>
>     As we are mostly shipping features, there’s nothing speaking against doing>
>
>     minor (i.e. compatible) releases which makes it really easy for users to>
>
>     update.>
>
>     Perhaps, we could aim for monthly releases (if we have things to release)>
>
>     and already start the setup for that. I am really eager to get the PLC4X-88>
>
>     (Triggered Scraper) merged and then shipped!>
>
>     Next would then be 0.3.2 in early April.>
>
>
>
>     What do you think of that concrete and more general?>
>
>
>
>     Julian>
>
>
>
>     PS.: If we move forward with graduation the release process is also>
>
>     becoming a bit easier, as there’s only one vote necessary (and no longer>
>
>     the second vote from the IPMC)>
>
>
>
>
>
>