Rethinking our release strategy
Locked
123
123
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
 
|
It's useful because end users can see that functionality they are using
actually has a person(s) that is commited to its quality. As has already been mentioned, ofbiz feels like a "developers playground". This makes me nervous building important business processes around ofbiz. A key factor in me choosing ofbiz for my current government client was that the area we were using (workeffort, iCalendar) had a committer who was very interested in the quality of those areas. Scott Gray wrote: > On 16/02/2010, at 12:31 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > > >> Hi Scott, >> >> It would be very useful for an outsider to see who is "responsible" for what. >> > > How would it be useful? > > >> Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> What would we achieve by cataloging the pieces of the project we feel confident with? If it's not a serious commitment then how would it differ from what we do right now, aside from having an extra wiki page? >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> HotWax Media >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>> >>> On 16/02/2010, at 12:04 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Or even informal roles. >>>> >>>> For example: My employer doesn't use eCommerce, so I am not qualified to be responsible for that. But, I will gladly take on responsibility for areas of the project my employer uses - like Work Effort and Asset Maintenance. >>>> >>>> I have been thinking about that lately - each contributor or committer could list the areas they feel comfortable with overseeing. It would be strictly voluntary - not a serious commitment or anything. >>>> >>>> The reason I suggest it is because I recognize my own limitations - I can't review and comment on EVERYTHING. I have a feeling other committers are in the same situation. So, why not catalog our strengths, and assume responsibility for pieces of the project we feel confident with - instead of (right or wrong) feeling responsible for the whole project. >>>> >>>> W could use the service provider Wiki page as a model - create a Wiki page where everyone advertises what areas of the project they feel knowledgeable in. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Gray-2
Scott,
I can answer to that. My employer is located in the southwestern corner of the USA. We only do business in the southwest USA. As an OFBiz developer, I have taken on the cause for internationalization - not because it benefits my employer, but because it benefits the project. I speak very little French, but I know that a calendar week in France starts on Monday. How do I know that? Because it is something I chose to learn. How will others in the community know that I know that? *shrug* Maybe a Wiki page will tell them. -Adrian --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: Scott Gray <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: Rethinking our release strategy > To: [hidden email] > Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 11:33 PM > On 16/02/2010, at 12:31 AM, > Christopher Snow wrote: > > > Hi Scott, > > > > It would be very useful for an outsider to see who is > "responsible" for what. > > How would it be useful? > > > Scott Gray wrote: > >> What would we achieve by cataloging the pieces of > the project we feel confident with? If it's not a > serious commitment then how would it differ from what we do > right now, aside from having an extra wiki page? > >> > >> Regards > >> Scott > >> > >> HotWax Media > >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >> > >> On 16/02/2010, at 12:04 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Or even informal roles. > >>> > >>> For example: My employer doesn't use > eCommerce, so I am not qualified to be responsible for that. > But, I will gladly take on responsibility for areas of the > project my employer uses - like Work Effort and Asset > Maintenance. > >>> > >>> I have been thinking about that lately - each > contributor or committer could list the areas they feel > comfortable with overseeing. It would be strictly voluntary > - not a serious commitment or anything. > >>> > >>> The reason I suggest it is because I recognize > my own limitations - I can't review and comment on > EVERYTHING. I have a feeling other committers are in the > same situation. So, why not catalog our strengths, and > assume responsibility for pieces of the project we feel > confident with - instead of (right or wrong) feeling > responsible for the whole project. > >>> > >>> W could use the service provider Wiki page as > a model - create a Wiki page where everyone advertises what > areas of the project they feel knowledgeable in. > >>> > >>> -Adrian > >>> > > > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
It is ironic.
Ruth Christopher Snow wrote: > It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in > many areas > (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) > EXCEPT release management. > > Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> Hi Jacopo: >> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. >> Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is >> just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT >> organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be >> implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >> >> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the >>> past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in >>> OFBiz. >>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, >>> that is our latest release branch: >>> * there are more users than maintainers >>> >> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is >> using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I >> have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, >> but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer >> has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are >> just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has >>> been created around it from the community of users and interested >>> parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the >>> trunk >>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code >>> improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>> >> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this >> not true? >>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>> >> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are >> applied to the release and the trunk? >>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we >>> will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the >>> OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing >>> channel represented by a new release >>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is >>> slowing improving if they just get the releases >>> >> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people >> evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently >> wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of >> debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a >> new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from >> it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but >> I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump >> to download this new release will be project committers. >>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk >>> rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that >>> one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to >>> the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>> >>> >> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively >> trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>> >> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a >> different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases >> "maintained". >>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead >>> of the trunk >>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>> >> True. Very true. >>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of >>> committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more >>> stable than older releases >>> >>> >> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if >> appropriate. Is this not the case? >>> Here is what I suggest: >>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially >>> issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): >>> since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in >>> the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of >>> features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release >>> based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>> >> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is >> sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards >> making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make >> it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then >> work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. >> Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" >> release make. >>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to >>> releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>> >>> >> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have >> nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents >>> the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of >>> users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the >>> current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and >>> maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the >>> code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead >>> of the release), not the "stable" release. >>> >>> >> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure >> and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these >> "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to >> circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" >> should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a >> thought. >> >> Ruth >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it.
I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > It is ironic. > Ruth > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >> >> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> Hi Jacopo: >>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>> >>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. >>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>> >>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>> >>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>> >>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>> >>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. >>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>> >>>> >>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>> >>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases "maintained". >>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>> >>> True. Very true. >>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases >>>> >>>> >>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>> >>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>> >>>> >>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>> >>>> >>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>> >>> Ruth >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
Administrator
|
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
Thanks for the reminder Anil! Jacques From: "Anil Patel" <[hidden email]> >I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. > > I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. > > Thanks and Regards > Anil Patel > HotWax Media Inc > Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > >> It is ironic. >> Ruth >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas >>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >>> >>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, >>>> this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who >>>> ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for >>>>> releases in OFBiz. >>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>> >>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download >>>> statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. >>>> Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is >>>> doing what with the code. >>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and >>>>> interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>> >>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>> >>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release >>>>> it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>> >>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They >>>> will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the >>>> project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics >>>> we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release >>>> will be project committers. >>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no >>>>> guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may >>>>> be left behind forever >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for >>>> thought. >>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>> >>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see >>>> releases "maintained". >>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>> >>>> True. Very true. >>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more >>>>> stable than older releases >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an >>>>> idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates >>>>> instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the >>>>> release date >>>>> >>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >>>> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. >>>> Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" >>>> requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to >>>>> release >>>>> >>>>> >>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger >>>>> audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a >>>>> stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our >>>>> users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not >>>> use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that >>>> maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>> >>>> Ruth >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
Jacques,
Thanks for quick help. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" On Feb 16, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan > > Thanks for the reminder Anil! > > Jacques > > From: "Anil Patel" <[hidden email]> >> I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. >> >> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >>> It is ironic. >>> Ruth >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >>>> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. >>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>> >>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>> >>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>> >>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>> >>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. >>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>> >>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases "maintained". >>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>> >>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>>>> >>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> Ruth >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Anil Patel-3
Hi Anil,
Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is responsible for the following areas for each release: - migration from old to new releases - patch management - dependency management - quality management - documentation - etc.. I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have a much stronger release management process. Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: > I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. > > I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. > > Thanks and Regards > Anil Patel > HotWax Media Inc > Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > >> It is ironic. >> Ruth >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >>> >>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. >>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>> >>>>> >>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>> >>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>> >>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>> >>>>> >>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>> >>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. >>>> >>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>> >>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases "maintained". >>>> >>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>> >>>>> >>>> True. Very true. >>>> >>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>> >>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>> >>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>> >>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>> >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-2
That's makes it sounds more like a help directory for who to call upon when a user has a question. What benefit would a community member derive from knowing that you know that a French week starts on a Monday? If they have a question they can just post it to the user list and get a response, does it make a difference if they start the message with "Hi Adrian,"?
What additional rights or responsibilities would come with declaring yourself an expert/overseer for a given area of functionality? I'm not coming out against the idea, I just still don't understand what we'll actually achieve by doing so. Regards Scott On 16/02/2010, at 1:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Scott, > > I can answer to that. My employer is located in the southwestern corner of the USA. We only do business in the southwest USA. > > As an OFBiz developer, I have taken on the cause for internationalization - not because it benefits my employer, but because it benefits the project. > > I speak very little French, but I know that a calendar week in France starts on Monday. How do I know that? Because it is something I chose to learn. > > How will others in the community know that I know that? > > *shrug* > > Maybe a Wiki page will tell them. > > -Adrian > > --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> From: Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: Rethinking our release strategy >> To: [hidden email] >> Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 11:33 PM >> On 16/02/2010, at 12:31 AM, >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> It would be very useful for an outsider to see who is >> "responsible" for what. >> >> How would it be useful? >> >>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>> What would we achieve by cataloging the pieces of >> the project we feel confident with? If it's not a >> serious commitment then how would it differ from what we do >> right now, aside from having an extra wiki page? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> HotWax Media >>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>> >>>> On 16/02/2010, at 12:04 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Or even informal roles. >>>>> >>>>> For example: My employer doesn't use >> eCommerce, so I am not qualified to be responsible for that. >> But, I will gladly take on responsibility for areas of the >> project my employer uses - like Work Effort and Asset >> Maintenance. >>>>> >>>>> I have been thinking about that lately - each >> contributor or committer could list the areas they feel >> comfortable with overseeing. It would be strictly voluntary >> - not a serious commitment or anything. >>>>> >>>>> The reason I suggest it is because I recognize >> my own limitations - I can't review and comment on >> EVERYTHING. I have a feeling other committers are in the >> same situation. So, why not catalog our strengths, and >> assume responsibility for pieces of the project we feel >> confident with - instead of (right or wrong) feeling >> responsible for the whole project. >>>>> >>>>> W could use the service provider Wiki page as >> a model - create a Wiki page where everyone advertises what >> areas of the project they feel knowledgeable in. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>> >> >> > > > |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
Scott Gray wrote:
> That's makes it sounds more like a help directory for who to call upon when a user has a question. What benefit would a community member derive from knowing that you know that a French week starts on a Monday? If they have a question they can just post it to the user list and get a response, does it make a difference if they start the message with "Hi Adrian,"? > > What additional rights or responsibilities would come with declaring yourself an expert/overseer for a given area of functionality? > > I'm not coming out against the idea, I just still don't understand what we'll actually achieve by doing so. Additionally, if we list specific people as 'in charge' of certain areas, they may end up getting private mails, which could get lost, and might not even be answered quickly enough. Mailing to any of the lists would get a faster response, from anyone who just happens to know the answer. |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Gray-2
Hi Scott, from my perspective it would be a starting point in turning a
bunch of independent committers into a well organised team. Scott Gray wrote: > That's makes it sounds more like a help directory for who to call upon when a user has a question. What benefit would a community member derive from knowing that you know that a French week starts on a Monday? If they have a question they can just post it to the user list and get a response, does it make a difference if they start the message with "Hi Adrian,"? > > What additional rights or responsibilities would come with declaring yourself an expert/overseer for a given area of functionality? > > I'm not coming out against the idea, I just still don't understand what we'll actually achieve by doing so. > > Regards > Scott > > On 16/02/2010, at 1:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > >> Scott, >> >> I can answer to that. My employer is located in the southwestern corner of the USA. We only do business in the southwest USA. >> >> As an OFBiz developer, I have taken on the cause for internationalization - not because it benefits my employer, but because it benefits the project. >> >> I speak very little French, but I know that a calendar week in France starts on Monday. How do I know that? Because it is something I chose to learn. >> >> How will others in the community know that I know that? >> >> *shrug* >> >> Maybe a Wiki page will tell them. >> >> -Adrian >> >> --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
Hi Chris,
Our current strategy of using the dev list for discussions and creating design documents in confluence when deemed necessary achieves that quite nicely, the only potential point of failure for that process is a lack of participation and I don't see how assigning areas of responsibility would overcome that obstacle. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/02/2010, at 11:42 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Scott, from my perspective it would be a starting point in turning a bunch of independent committers into a well organised team. > > Scott Gray wrote: >> That's makes it sounds more like a help directory for who to call upon when a user has a question. What benefit would a community member derive from knowing that you know that a French week starts on a Monday? If they have a question they can just post it to the user list and get a response, does it make a difference if they start the message with "Hi Adrian,"? >> >> What additional rights or responsibilities would come with declaring yourself an expert/overseer for a given area of functionality? >> >> I'm not coming out against the idea, I just still don't understand what we'll actually achieve by doing so. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 16/02/2010, at 1:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >> >>> Scott, >>> >>> I can answer to that. My employer is located in the southwestern corner of the USA. We only do business in the southwest USA. >>> >>> As an OFBiz developer, I have taken on the cause for internationalization - not because it benefits my employer, but because it benefits the project. >>> >>> I speak very little French, but I know that a calendar week in France starts on Monday. How do I know that? Because it is something I chose to learn. >>> >>> How will others in the community know that I know that? >>> >>> *shrug* >>> >>> Maybe a Wiki page will tell them. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
A few misc comments in partial response to some of the interesting comments posted in this thread:
* I initially proposed a release every 6 months but a release every 12 (as many of you have proposed) is totally fine to me; the important aspect here is that we agree on a time based release (instead of a feature based one) and that we agree on the strategy of officially release every year (not just creating a candidate release) * when I wrote that the trunk is more stable than an old release I meant to say that the project's code, the framework, and the application are enhanced and improved over time the new bugs introduced are usually fixed in a rather short period; for this reason, it is true that there is a chance that this week the trunk could be less stable than the last week, but the chances that the trunk is less stable than one year ago are lower; this is my impression btw and I could be wrong * we will fail if we think that we can guarantee that a release will have (free of charge) services to upgrade from older releases, documentation etc... we have to be realistic and pragmatic and we cannot ask to the committers to do more than what they are doing Kind regards, Jacopo On Feb 15, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. > I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: > * there are more users than maintainers > * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) > * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk > * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) > * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk > > The main cons of this situations are the following: > 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release > 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases > 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever > > What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: > 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases > 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk > 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often > 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases > > Here is what I suggest: > A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date > B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release > > It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. > > What do you think? > > Jacopo > > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Anil Patel-3
Like to see a page that someone can note what they are testing and the
date that they completed that. it would allow those to see how it progressing and volunteer. to bad we don't have a ofbiz instance we could use the project management module to track. Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 2/16/2010 8:18 AM: > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan > > Thanks for the reminder Anil! > > Jacques > > From: "Anil Patel" <[hidden email]> >> I know we used to have a release management document on old >> confluence. Its matter of locating it. >> >> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >>> It is ironic. >>> Ruth >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in >>>> many areas >>>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) >>>> EXCEPT release management. >>>> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. >>>>> Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is >>>>> just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT >>>>> organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would >>>>> be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in >>>>>> the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for >>>>>> releases in OFBiz. >>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch >>>>>> 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>> >>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is >>>>> using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I >>>>> have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, >>>>> but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project >>>>> committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without >>>>> that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. >>>>>> has been created around it from the community of users and >>>>>> interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially >>>>>> release it) >>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of >>>>>> the trunk >>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code >>>>>> improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>> >>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is >>>>> this not true? >>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>> >>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes >>>>> are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we >>>>>> will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: >>>>>> the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing >>>>>> channel represented by a new release >>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is >>>>>> slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>> >>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most >>>>> people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will >>>>> patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and >>>>> reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project >>>>> releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get >>>>> it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify >>>>> my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only >>>>> people who will jump to download this new release will be project >>>>> committers. >>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk >>>>>> rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that >>>>>> one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to >>>>>> the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is >>>>> actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for >>>>> thought. >>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>> >>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have >>>>> a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases >>>>> "maintained". >>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release >>>>>> instead of the trunk >>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>> >>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of >>>>>> committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more >>>>>> stable than older releases >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if >>>>> appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially >>>>>> issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): >>>>>> since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in >>>>>> the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of >>>>>> features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release >>>>>> based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>>>> >>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is >>>>> sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >>>>> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards >>>>> making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. >>>>> Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And >>>>> then work towards making each release meet the "stability" >>>>> requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year >>>>> does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to >>>>>> releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to >>>>>> release >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have >>>>> nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that >>>>>> represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger >>>>>> audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue >>>>>> with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable >>>>>> and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing >>>>>> the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use >>>>>> instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the >>>>> structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not >>>>> use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of >>>>> trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that >>>>> maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk >>>>> code. Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> Ruth >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
Chris,
Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we could be better. Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find some good discussions on this topic. Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Anil, > > Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. > Who is responsible for the following areas for each release: > > - migration from old to new releases > - patch management > - dependency management > - quality management > - documentation > - etc.. > > I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). > > The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have a much stronger release management process. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Anil Patel wrote: >> I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. >> >> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>> It is ironic. >>> Ruth >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >>>> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. >>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>> >>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>>> >>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>> >>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>>> >>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>> >>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>> >>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>> >>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. >>>>> >>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>>> >>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>> >>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases "maintained". >>>>> >>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>> >>>>> True. Very true. >>>>> >>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>> >>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>>>> >>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>>> >>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>> >>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
Hi Anil:
No disrespect intended to anyone on this list, but how is it I wonder that PostgreSQL is able to manage releases so well? Last I looked they are still totally community driven and you will find PostgreSQL installed in some pretty "high" places. Just wondering out loud. Regards, Ruth ---------------------------------------------------- Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz" [hidden email] Anil Patel wrote: > Chris, > Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we could be better. > > Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find some good discussions on this topic. > > Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. > > Thanks and Regards > Anil Patel > HotWax Media Inc > Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: > > >> Hi Anil, >> >> Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. >> Who is responsible for the following areas for each release: >> >> - migration from old to new releases >> - patch management >> - dependency management >> - quality management >> - documentation >> - etc.. >> >> I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). >> >> The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have a much stronger release management process. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> Anil Patel wrote: >> >>> I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. >>> >>> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards >>> Anil Patel >>> HotWax Media Inc >>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> It is ironic. >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >>>>> >>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. >>>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases "maintained". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
There is a big difference between software that implements public specifications (like SQL, JDBC, etc) and that tend to stay mostly the same over time and software like OFBiz that implements business concepts that are not driven by a public specification. Also, with PostgreSQL in particular as an example, that software was driven by commercial interests for the majority of its life, and OFBiz never has been. I did attempt to get an effort going to produce some sort of requirements and designs to drive what goes into OFBiz, but that "marketplace" that drives OFBiz doesn't seem to be oriented to that. IMO Anil is right on. In order to get these things done, and get them maintained over time, the people involved MUST have a motive to do so. So far that hasn't happened, and I guarantee that once a sufficient structure of motivation has been setup then people will get involved and these things will happen. In the project right now contributors and committers do have reasons to put things into the project, even if most users of the software clearly don't understand the reasons involved. Is it possible that a volunteer community will form and work on a documented, tested, high quality release? Yes it's possible, and I've been pushing to leave that door open with the approach we're using with the release branches (ie a place to start for those interested in such a thing). Has it happened? Yes, but only a little bit. There are people that fix bugs specifically in the release branches, just not very many. There is some documentation specifically for certain release branches, just not very much and not much collaboration in it. So yeah, it could happen as a community effort but in order to get people motivated to do a good job with it my guess is that a commercial effort has a better chance of being sustainable. That would basically be a commercial distribution of OFBiz that includes support (installation, development, and production support), documentation, migration from one version of the distribution to another, etc. One effort that started this way ended up being a fork of OFBiz. They didn't focus on being a distribution and instead focused on differentiation and user lock-in by creating add-ons and other things that competed with the open source community. So there is another important part: the people involved have to understand how to work with the open source community and provide the things that are really only viable with some funding, which is (for those interested) mostly stuff that people customizing the software will not typically do (there's a hint). -David On Feb 16, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi Anil: > No disrespect intended to anyone on this list, but how is it I wonder that PostgreSQL is able to manage releases so well? Last I looked they are still totally community driven and you will find PostgreSQL installed in some pretty "high" places. > > Just wondering out loud. > > Regards, > Ruth > ---------------------------------------------------- > Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz" > [hidden email] > > Anil Patel wrote: >> Chris, >> Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we could be better. >> >> Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find some good discussions on this topic. >> Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Anil, >>> >>> Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is responsible for the following areas for each release: >>> >>> - migration from old to new releases >>> - patch management >>> - dependency management >>> - quality management >>> - documentation >>> - etc.. >>> >>> I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). >>> >>> The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have a much stronger release management process. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> Anil Patel wrote: >>> >>>> I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. >>>> >>>> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards >>>> Anil Patel >>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>> >>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is ironic. >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. >>>>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) >>>>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk >>>>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases "maintained". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk >>>>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to release >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Anil Patel-3
http://www.postgresql.org/about/history
you will notice is did not start as open source. 1996 is when i started with it. here is an excerpt that ofbiz has yet to achieve. In 1996, Postgres95 departed from academia and started a new life in the open source world when a group of dedicated developers outside of Berkeley saw the promise of the system, and devoted themselves to its continued development. Contributing enormous amounts of time, skill, labor, and technical expertise, this global development group radically transformed Postgres. Over the next eight years, they brought consistency and uniformity to the code base, created detailed regression tests for quality assurance, set up mailing lists for bug reports, fixed innumerable bugs, added incredible new features, and rounded out the system by filling various gaps such as documentation for developers and users. ofbiz is just about 8+ yrs old. so by the time it is as old as Postgresql from its inception I exspect it will be like Postgresql. Ruth Hoffman sent the following on 2/16/2010 3:05 PM: > Hi Anil: > No disrespect intended to anyone on this list, but how is it I wonder > that PostgreSQL is able to manage releases so well? Last I looked they > are still totally community driven and you will find PostgreSQL > installed in some pretty "high" places. > > Just wondering out loud. > > Regards, > Ruth > ---------------------------------------------------- > Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz" > [hidden email] > > Anil Patel wrote: >> Chris, >> Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In >> ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we >> could be better. >> >> Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects >> like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and >> developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find >> some good discussions on this topic. >> Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally >> managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see >> opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services >> like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Anil, >>> >>> Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question >>> is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be >>> just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is >>> responsible for the following areas for each release: >>> >>> - migration from old to new releases >>> - patch management >>> - dependency management >>> - quality management >>> - documentation >>> - etc.. >>> >>> I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who >>> would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). >>> >>> The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products >>> are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have >>> a much stronger release management process. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> Anil Patel wrote: >>> >>>> I know we used to have a release management document on old >>>> confluence. Its matter of locating it. >>>> >>>> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and >>>> Regards >>>> Anil Patel >>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>> >>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is ironic. >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in >>>>>> many areas >>>>>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) >>>>>> EXCEPT release management. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release >>>>>>> strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. >>>>>>> Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big >>>>>>> complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who >>>>>>> ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in >>>>>>>> the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for >>>>>>>> releases in OFBiz. >>>>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch >>>>>>>> 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who >>>>>>> is using what, maybe we could look into getting download >>>>>>> statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure >>>>>>> team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe >>>>>>> a project committer has more clout and could get this >>>>>>> implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is >>>>>>> doing what with the code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. >>>>>>>> has been created around it from the community of users and >>>>>>>> interested parties (in fact we were not really able to >>>>>>>> officially release it) >>>>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of >>>>>>>> the trunk >>>>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also >>>>>>>> code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is >>>>>>> this not true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes >>>>>>> are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that >>>>>>>> we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release >>>>>>>> it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the >>>>>>>> marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is >>>>>>>> slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most >>>>>>> people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They >>>>>>> will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and >>>>>>> reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the >>>>>>> project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will >>>>>>> stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download >>>>>>> statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet >>>>>>> real money, that the only people who will jump to download this >>>>>>> new release will be project committers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the >>>>>>>> trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no >>>>>>>> guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from >>>>>>>> the old release to the new one... users of the old release may >>>>>>>> be left behind forever >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is >>>>>>> actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food >>>>>>> for thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may >>>>>>> have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see >>>>>>> releases "maintained". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release >>>>>>>> instead of the trunk >>>>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of >>>>>>>> committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) >>>>>>>> more stable than older releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release >>>>>>> if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially >>>>>>>> issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an >>>>>>>> idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that >>>>>>>> will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates >>>>>>>> instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time >>>>>>>> of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the >>>>>>>> release date >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is >>>>>>> sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >>>>>>> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards >>>>>>> making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. >>>>>>> Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. >>>>>>> And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" >>>>>>> requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year >>>>>>> does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to >>>>>>>> releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to >>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have >>>>>>> nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that >>>>>>>> represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger >>>>>>>> audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue >>>>>>>> with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a >>>>>>>> stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is >>>>>>>> distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our >>>>>>>> users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the >>>>>>> structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why >>>>>>> not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead >>>>>>> of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in >>>>>>> that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead >>>>>>> of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
|
In reply to this post by Anil Patel-3
Also not that it has had to major revision since 1996
and it took 4yrs between revisions. BJ Freeman sent the following on 2/17/2010 12:03 AM: > http://www.postgresql.org/about/history > you will notice is did not start as open source. > 1996 is when i started with it. > > here is an excerpt that ofbiz has yet to achieve. > > In 1996, Postgres95 departed from academia and started a new life in the > open source world when a group of dedicated developers outside of > Berkeley saw the promise of the system, and devoted themselves to its > continued development. Contributing enormous amounts of time, skill, > labor, and technical expertise, this global development group radically > transformed Postgres. Over the next eight years, they brought > consistency and uniformity to the code base, created detailed regression > tests for quality assurance, set up mailing lists for bug reports, fixed > innumerable bugs, added incredible new features, and rounded out the > system by filling various gaps such as documentation for developers and > users. > > ofbiz is just about 8+ yrs old. so by the time it is as old as > Postgresql from its inception I exspect it will be like Postgresql. > > > Ruth Hoffman sent the following on 2/16/2010 3:05 PM: >> Hi Anil: >> No disrespect intended to anyone on this list, but how is it I wonder >> that PostgreSQL is able to manage releases so well? Last I looked they >> are still totally community driven and you will find PostgreSQL >> installed in some pretty "high" places. >> >> Just wondering out loud. >> >> Regards, >> Ruth >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz" >> [hidden email] >> >> Anil Patel wrote: >>> Chris, >>> Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In >>> ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we >>> could be better. >>> >>> Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects >>> like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and >>> developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find >>> some good discussions on this topic. >>> Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally >>> managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see >>> opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services >>> like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards >>> Anil Patel >>> HotWax Media Inc >>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Anil, >>>> >>>> Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question >>>> is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be >>>> just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is >>>> responsible for the following areas for each release: >>>> >>>> - migration from old to new releases >>>> - patch management >>>> - dependency management >>>> - quality management >>>> - documentation >>>> - etc.. >>>> >>>> I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who >>>> would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). >>>> >>>> The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products >>>> are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have >>>> a much stronger release management process. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> Anil Patel wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know we used to have a release management document on old >>>>> confluence. Its matter of locating it. >>>>> >>>>> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and >>>>> Regards >>>>> Anil Patel >>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It is ironic. >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in >>>>>>> many areas >>>>>>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) >>>>>>> EXCEPT release management. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release >>>>>>>> strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. >>>>>>>> Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big >>>>>>>> complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who >>>>>>>> ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in >>>>>>>>> the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for >>>>>>>>> releases in OFBiz. >>>>>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch >>>>>>>>> 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who >>>>>>>> is using what, maybe we could look into getting download >>>>>>>> statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure >>>>>>>> team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe >>>>>>>> a project committer has more clout and could get this >>>>>>>> implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is >>>>>>>> doing what with the code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. >>>>>>>>> has been created around it from the community of users and >>>>>>>>> interested parties (in fact we were not really able to >>>>>>>>> officially release it) >>>>>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of >>>>>>>>> the trunk >>>>>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also >>>>>>>>> code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is >>>>>>>> this not true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes >>>>>>>> are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that >>>>>>>>> we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release >>>>>>>>> it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the >>>>>>>>> marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is >>>>>>>>> slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most >>>>>>>> people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They >>>>>>>> will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and >>>>>>>> reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the >>>>>>>> project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will >>>>>>>> stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download >>>>>>>> statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet >>>>>>>> real money, that the only people who will jump to download this >>>>>>>> new release will be project committers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the >>>>>>>>> trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no >>>>>>>>> guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from >>>>>>>>> the old release to the new one... users of the old release may >>>>>>>>> be left behind forever >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is >>>>>>>> actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food >>>>>>>> for thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may >>>>>>>> have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see >>>>>>>> releases "maintained". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release >>>>>>>>> instead of the trunk >>>>>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of >>>>>>>>> committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) >>>>>>>>> more stable than older releases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release >>>>>>>> if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially >>>>>>>>> issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an >>>>>>>>> idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that >>>>>>>>> will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates >>>>>>>>> instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time >>>>>>>>> of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the >>>>>>>>> release date >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is >>>>>>>> sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >>>>>>>> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards >>>>>>>> making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. >>>>>>>> Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. >>>>>>>> And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" >>>>>>>> requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year >>>>>>>> does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to >>>>>>>>> releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to >>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have >>>>>>>> nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that >>>>>>>>> represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger >>>>>>>>> audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue >>>>>>>>> with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a >>>>>>>>> stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is >>>>>>>>> distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our >>>>>>>>> users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the >>>>>>>> structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why >>>>>>>> not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead >>>>>>>> of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in >>>>>>>> that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead >>>>>>>> of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by BJ Freeman
Moreover it derives from Ingres which begins in 1977...
Jacques From: "BJ Freeman" <[hidden email]> > http://www.postgresql.org/about/history > you will notice is did not start as open source. > 1996 is when i started with it. > > here is an excerpt that ofbiz has yet to achieve. > > In 1996, Postgres95 departed from academia and started a new life in the > open source world when a group of dedicated developers outside of > Berkeley saw the promise of the system, and devoted themselves to its > continued development. Contributing enormous amounts of time, skill, > labor, and technical expertise, this global development group radically > transformed Postgres. Over the next eight years, they brought > consistency and uniformity to the code base, created detailed regression > tests for quality assurance, set up mailing lists for bug reports, fixed > innumerable bugs, added incredible new features, and rounded out the > system by filling various gaps such as documentation for developers and > users. > > ofbiz is just about 8+ yrs old. so by the time it is as old as > Postgresql from its inception I exspect it will be like Postgresql. > > > Ruth Hoffman sent the following on 2/16/2010 3:05 PM: >> Hi Anil: >> No disrespect intended to anyone on this list, but how is it I wonder >> that PostgreSQL is able to manage releases so well? Last I looked they >> are still totally community driven and you will find PostgreSQL >> installed in some pretty "high" places. >> >> Just wondering out loud. >> >> Regards, >> Ruth >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz" >> [hidden email] >> >> Anil Patel wrote: >>> Chris, >>> Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In >>> ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we >>> could be better. >>> >>> Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects >>> like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and >>> developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find >>> some good discussions on this topic. >>> Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally >>> managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see >>> opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services >>> like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards >>> Anil Patel >>> HotWax Media Inc >>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Anil, >>>> >>>> Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question >>>> is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be >>>> just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is >>>> responsible for the following areas for each release: >>>> >>>> - migration from old to new releases >>>> - patch management >>>> - dependency management >>>> - quality management >>>> - documentation >>>> - etc.. >>>> >>>> I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who >>>> would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). >>>> >>>> The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products >>>> are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have >>>> a much stronger release management process. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> Anil Patel wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know we used to have a release management document on old >>>>> confluence. Its matter of locating it. >>>>> >>>>> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and >>>>> Regards >>>>> Anil Patel >>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It is ironic. >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in >>>>>>> many areas >>>>>>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) >>>>>>> EXCEPT release management. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release >>>>>>>> strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. >>>>>>>> Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big >>>>>>>> complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who >>>>>>>> ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in >>>>>>>>> the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for >>>>>>>>> releases in OFBiz. >>>>>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch >>>>>>>>> 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who >>>>>>>> is using what, maybe we could look into getting download >>>>>>>> statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure >>>>>>>> team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe >>>>>>>> a project committer has more clout and could get this >>>>>>>> implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is >>>>>>>> doing what with the code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. >>>>>>>>> has been created around it from the community of users and >>>>>>>>> interested parties (in fact we were not really able to >>>>>>>>> officially release it) >>>>>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of >>>>>>>>> the trunk >>>>>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also >>>>>>>>> code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is >>>>>>>> this not true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes >>>>>>>> are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that >>>>>>>>> we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release >>>>>>>>> it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the >>>>>>>>> marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is >>>>>>>>> slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most >>>>>>>> people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They >>>>>>>> will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and >>>>>>>> reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the >>>>>>>> project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will >>>>>>>> stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download >>>>>>>> statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet >>>>>>>> real money, that the only people who will jump to download this >>>>>>>> new release will be project committers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the >>>>>>>>> trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no >>>>>>>>> guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from >>>>>>>>> the old release to the new one... users of the old release may >>>>>>>>> be left behind forever >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is >>>>>>>> actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food >>>>>>>> for thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may >>>>>>>> have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see >>>>>>>> releases "maintained". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release >>>>>>>>> instead of the trunk >>>>>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of >>>>>>>>> committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) >>>>>>>>> more stable than older releases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release >>>>>>>> if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially >>>>>>>>> issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an >>>>>>>>> idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that >>>>>>>>> will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates >>>>>>>>> instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time >>>>>>>>> of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the >>>>>>>>> release date >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is >>>>>>>> sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >>>>>>>> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards >>>>>>>> making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. >>>>>>>> Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. >>>>>>>> And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" >>>>>>>> requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year >>>>>>>> does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to >>>>>>>>> releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to >>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have >>>>>>>> nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that >>>>>>>>> represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger >>>>>>>>> audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue >>>>>>>>> with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a >>>>>>>>> stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is >>>>>>>>> distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our >>>>>>>>> users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the >>>>>>>> structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why >>>>>>>> not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead >>>>>>>> of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in >>>>>>>> that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead >>>>>>>> of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > |
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
BTW, It's a moment now that I want to write an history for OFBiz. Never found the time yet :/
Of course I'd need some help as I was interested by OFBiz only starting in Sept. 2004 and not really involved before February 2005 Jacques From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]> > Moreover it derives from Ingres which begins in 1977... > > Jacques > > From: "BJ Freeman" <[hidden email]> >> http://www.postgresql.org/about/history >> you will notice is did not start as open source. >> 1996 is when i started with it. >> >> here is an excerpt that ofbiz has yet to achieve. >> >> In 1996, Postgres95 departed from academia and started a new life in the >> open source world when a group of dedicated developers outside of >> Berkeley saw the promise of the system, and devoted themselves to its >> continued development. Contributing enormous amounts of time, skill, >> labor, and technical expertise, this global development group radically >> transformed Postgres. Over the next eight years, they brought >> consistency and uniformity to the code base, created detailed regression >> tests for quality assurance, set up mailing lists for bug reports, fixed >> innumerable bugs, added incredible new features, and rounded out the >> system by filling various gaps such as documentation for developers and >> users. >> >> ofbiz is just about 8+ yrs old. so by the time it is as old as >> Postgresql from its inception I exspect it will be like Postgresql. >> >> >> Ruth Hoffman sent the following on 2/16/2010 3:05 PM: >>> Hi Anil: >>> No disrespect intended to anyone on this list, but how is it I wonder >>> that PostgreSQL is able to manage releases so well? Last I looked they >>> are still totally community driven and you will find PostgreSQL >>> installed in some pretty "high" places. >>> >>> Just wondering out loud. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ruth >>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz" >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> Anil Patel wrote: >>>> Chris, >>>> Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In >>>> ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we >>>> could be better. >>>> >>>> Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects >>>> like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and >>>> developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find >>>> some good discussions on this topic. >>>> Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally >>>> managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see >>>> opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services >>>> like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. >>>> >>>> Thanks and Regards >>>> Anil Patel >>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>> >>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Anil, >>>>> >>>>> Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question >>>>> is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be >>>>> just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is >>>>> responsible for the following areas for each release: >>>>> >>>>> - migration from old to new releases >>>>> - patch management >>>>> - dependency management >>>>> - quality management >>>>> - documentation >>>>> - etc.. >>>>> >>>>> I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who >>>>> would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). >>>>> >>>>> The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products >>>>> are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have >>>>> a much stronger release management process. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> Anil Patel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know we used to have a release management document on old >>>>>> confluence. Its matter of locating it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Anil Patel >>>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is ironic. >>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in >>>>>>>> many areas >>>>>>>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) >>>>>>>> EXCEPT release management. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo: >>>>>>>>> Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release >>>>>>>>> strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. >>>>>>>>> Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big >>>>>>>>> complex IT organizations. These are the kind of "users" who >>>>>>>>> ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know this subject has been already discussed several times in >>>>>>>>>> the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for >>>>>>>>>> releases in OFBiz. >>>>>>>>>> I am under the impression that, considering the release branch >>>>>>>>>> 9.04, that is our latest release branch: >>>>>>>>>> * there are more users than maintainers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who >>>>>>>>> is using what, maybe we could look into getting download >>>>>>>>> statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure >>>>>>>>> team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe >>>>>>>>> a project committer has more clout and could get this >>>>>>>>> implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is >>>>>>>>> doing what with the code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. >>>>>>>>>> has been created around it from the community of users and >>>>>>>>>> interested parties (in fact we were not really able to >>>>>>>>>> officially release it) >>>>>>>>>> * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of >>>>>>>>>> the trunk >>>>>>>>>> * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also >>>>>>>>>> code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is >>>>>>>>> this not true? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes >>>>>>>>> are applied to the release and the trunk? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The main cons of this situations are the following: >>>>>>>>>> 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that >>>>>>>>>> we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release >>>>>>>>>> it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the >>>>>>>>>> marketing channel represented by a new release >>>>>>>>>> 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is >>>>>>>>>> slowing improving if they just get the releases >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most >>>>>>>>> people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They >>>>>>>>> will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and >>>>>>>>> reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the >>>>>>>>> project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will >>>>>>>>> stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download >>>>>>>>> statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet >>>>>>>>> real money, that the only people who will jump to download this >>>>>>>>> new release will be project committers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the >>>>>>>>>> trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no >>>>>>>>>> guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from >>>>>>>>>> the old release to the new one... users of the old release may >>>>>>>>>> be left behind forever >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you mistake "user" with "committer". What "user" is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food >>>>>>>>> for thought. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: >>>>>>>>>> 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only the "committers" are not interested. Users out there may >>>>>>>>> have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see >>>>>>>>> releases "maintained". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release >>>>>>>>>> instead of the trunk >>>>>>>>>> 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True. Very true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of >>>>>>>>>> committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) >>>>>>>>>> more stable than older releases >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release >>>>>>>>> if appropriate. Is this not the case? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is what I suggest: >>>>>>>>>> A) define an official release plan that says that we officially >>>>>>>>>> issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an >>>>>>>>>> idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that >>>>>>>>>> will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates >>>>>>>>>> instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time >>>>>>>>>> of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the >>>>>>>>>> release date >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is >>>>>>>>> sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, >>>>>>>>> fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards >>>>>>>>> making OFBiz something more than just a developer's playground. >>>>>>>>> Make it "stable" by setting out in advance what "stable" means. >>>>>>>>> And then work towards making each release meet the "stability" >>>>>>>>> requirements. Just releasing something every 6 months or a year >>>>>>>>> does not a "stable" release make. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> B) there is no guarantee that patches will be backported to >>>>>>>>>> releases, that upgrade scripts will be created from release to >>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If so, then what is the point of even having releases? Just have >>>>>>>>> nightly trunk builds and everyone is happy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is true that the ASF policies ask that a release, that >>>>>>>>>> represents the code that is distributed by the ASF to the larger >>>>>>>>>> audience of users, is a "stable" deliverable; but if we continue >>>>>>>>>> with the current approach, even if it is intended to get a >>>>>>>>>> stable and maintained release, what we are really doing is >>>>>>>>>> distributing the code in the trunk (this is what we suggest our >>>>>>>>>> users to use instead of the release), not the "stable" release. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMHO, one of the true benefits of going with the ASF is the >>>>>>>>> structure and stability they enforce on umbrella projects. Why >>>>>>>>> not use these "restrictions" to the project's advantage instead >>>>>>>>> of trying to circumvent them. I think I'm agreeing with you in >>>>>>>>> that maybe "we" should start pointing users to releases instead >>>>>>>>> of trunk code. Just a thought. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |