Re: [boost] Re: Release Manager's Checklist added

From: Joerg Walter (jhr.walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-09 08:19:10

Hi Daniel,

you wrote:

[snip]

> > That's probably wrong. They should use a tracker first and then discuss
them
> > on the mailing lists.
>
> I disagree. I think that we should try to focus information instead of
> spreading them around.

That's exactly what a tracker is good for IMHO.

> If we use the CVS-tree for the code, the mailing
> list(s) for discussion and regression tests (in CVS) to track bugs, this
> should be enought. The regression tests are IMHO superior to
> bug-trackers as they provide a much better feedback and are easier to
> maintain.

Regression tests and tracker do not contradict.

> Bug-trackers are just administrative overhead in my eyes, YMMV.

Maybe that's a question of the project's size. And boost is still growing.

> Let's make a small survey on what part we should keep and what might be
> obsoleted for the future. AFAIK the items to note are:
>
> Mandatory and IMHO not controversal:
>
> - CVS
> - Mailing list(s)
> - Website
> - Releases on SF

Agreed.

> Other sources:
>
> - Wiki

Inofficial.

> - Yahoogroup's files-section
> - SF *-tracker
>
> Personally, I'd like to get rid of the latter two. The reason against
> the files-section is, that it was very useful in the beginning, but as
> we have a main- and a sandbox-CVS and we can use branches on them, there
> shouldn't be any need for a files-section any longer.

Unsure: one first needs CVS access then.

> This is also
> backuped by the fact that the files-section isn't used as frequently as
> in the beginning (AFAICS).
>
> The trackers are IMHO a problem because they require a lot of work.

That could be, yes.

> The
> current state shows that it is not maintained well, e.g. there are open
> bugs which are long closed in CVS, see #451535. Sure we could do better
> in theory, but is it worth it? Why not use regression tests to track
> bugs? AFAICS people pay a lot of attention to the regression tests and
> the whole systems work pretty well.
>
> Also, I hope that it could make the release manager's work easier to
> have fewer sources to track :)

In my opinion it should be easier for the release manager to look into the
tracker than to follow *all* mailing list traffic.

> OK, what do others think? Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with
> the SF-trackers?

Yep, I'm curious, too.

> >>we need
> >>to do a certain amount of management to ensure release quality.
>
> I would like to remind you of "KISS". Too much managment can also
> decrease quality as it might rule out some people. And I don't think
> that we really have a problem in tracking bugs.

Then we'd be the first probably ;-)

> For features, it's up to
> the maintainers to handle this, but it's IMHO better to discuss this on
> the list and probably extend the libraries FAQ- or futute-section. No
> new system required :)

Maybe features are another story.

Best,
Joerg