Re: [boost] Release Team?

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-07 17:38:15

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
> 
>>   * Being a release manager is a lot of work because of the size and
>> scope of Boost.
>>
> ...
> 
>> For 1.35 the release manager is going to face not just fine tuning the
>> process, but overhauling it. The repository changed, the process is
>> changing, and the tools are changing. Additionally, from my POV, the
>> discussions about the new release process don't seem to be progressing
>> at a quick enough pace. This made me realize it would be unrealistic
>> for me to devote the need time that being a release manager would
>> require. So the simple idea is to have a "Release Team" instead of a
>> "Release Manager" to distribute the work and hopefully smooth out the
>> attention a release gets. The dynamic would be:
> 
> The short form of the above is - Its a bigger job than it used to be - we 
> need more people.

The short form is - It will be a bigger job, on average, with each 
release as more "components" are added to Boost.

> In my opinion this is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  It will make
> things worse rather than better.

Worse how?

> The right way to think about this is:  Its a bigger job than it used to be -
> Divide into smaller jobs.  This means just adding one tested library at a 
> time.

That would only partially reduce the work. What about bug fixes to 
existing libraries? What about added platforms? What about improvements 
to release tools? What about release packaging? What about bug/issue 
monitoring? What about release documentation? ...and so on for all the 
things a release manager does.

[...]

> If you can find Three people who want to be release manager, then
> line 'em up and give them 1.34.2, 1.34.3 and 1.34.4.

I suspect we will never have volunteers given the specter of facing what 
Thomas went through alone.

> Now someone is going to say - that's too hard - You're tripling the work !!!

Yes.

> Ahhhh - and why is that?  That's because the build/release system is waaaaay
> to fragil. 

Do you expect the entire release system to be fixed before we do another 
release?

[...]

> Soooooo, to summarize,
> 
> a) Move to incremental releases

Yes. Which is what Beman and yourself, and everyone else AFAICT, is 
saying. Do you have some other definition of "incremental"? How are 
incremental releases different from previous releases?

> b) Formalize the developement of Boost Build to the standards demanded of 
> other boost components.

Yes, and IMHO Boost Build V2 is of higher quality than some Boost 
libraries. But perhaps you mean the development of release and testing, 
tools and procedures?

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo