[boost] Re: Release Manager's Checklist added

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-09 16:58:00

jhr.walter_at_[hidden] (Joerg Walter) writes:

> 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.

Yes, agreed.  One big problem though is that the SF trackers kinda
suck.  I'd be interested in trying something else, like
http://roundup.sourceforge.net/

>> 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.

Yes, agreed.

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

Trying to keep track of everything in my head is a lot of mental
overhead.

> 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.

Agreed; we need something else... though perhaps it's enough to ask
people to post small things to the list and either get sandbox access
or have their own ftp/http site to submit larger things.

>> The trackers are IMHO a problem because they require a lot of work.
>
> That could be, yes.

Yeah, but that might just be the SF trackers.  We don't have to use
them as-is.

>> 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.

Yeah.  Also, you can't always get people who find bugs to make
reproducible test cases in a form that integrates with the regression
suite.

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

Nope; I dislike them also.  That doesn't mean trackers in general are
a bad idea.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com