<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Oliveira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruno@abstractj.org" target="_blank">bruno@abstractj.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Speaking from my side, security. I don’t have a formal process, I think it’s up to each tech lead: Android, iOs, JS and Security.<br>
<br>
Currently what I do is:<br>
<br>
- Announce the release date via roadmaps<br>
- If something went wrong, give a heads up on the ML and update the roadmaps & Jira with a new date.<br>
- During the release process I often send an e-mail to the ML and wait 2 business days. <br>
- If someone shows up willing to test, I coordinate and wait (I don’t want people wasting their time for nothing)<br>
- If I don’t hear anything, ship it<br>
<br>
I think each community or technology has its own release cycle and in my opinion any attempt to push formality defeats the purpose.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>yeah - I agree w/ these, the main point is really that before we ship a particular release (regardless of the platform), the dev-list should be given a heads-up for testing (similar to what you laid out).</div>
<div><br></div><div>That way we don't 'silently' release a piece of software</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
--<br>
abstractj<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On March 11, 2014 at 6:00:35 AM, Matthias Wessendorf (<a href="mailto:matzew@apache.org">matzew@apache.org</a>) wrote:<br>
> > Hello,<br>
><br>
> for the Java bits we do have a solid release process ([1]). The<br>
> main benefit is we stage the artifacts on a repo and give the community<br>
> a heads-up for testing. Based on this vote we release (or may not<br>
> release). This is a great way to engage the entire community to<br>
> double check and give feedback. The release process is a shared<br>
> thing inside of the community.<br>
><br>
><br>
> For the other bits we currently do not have a similar process (my<br>
> feeling). I'd actually prefer if we establish something like<br>
> that on all the other platforms as well. This gives the community<br>
> a chance to test the bits before we push them to the repos.<br>
><br>
> IMO, if we start 'silently' release bits to the actual repositories<br>
> it's kinda bypassing the community's feedback on a particular<br>
> release candiate. Sure all the projects have tests, but manual<br>
> testing, by the community is IMO a very positive thing<br>
><br>
> -Matthias<br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="https://github.com/aerogear/collateral/wiki/Release-Process-(Java)" target="_blank">https://github.com/aerogear/collateral/wiki/Release-Process-(Java)</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Matthias Wessendorf <br><br>blog: <a href="http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/</a><br>
sessions: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf</a><br>twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mwessendorf</a>
</div></div>