[sakai2-tcc] Update on Strawman schedule for Sakai 2.8 Release Activity

[Jean-Francois Leveque]

Hi Megan,

String freeze time for previous releases happened too late, as far as 
I'm concerned. I want this to change.

The i18n string calls are in code and the properties files are built 
with the code. It seems logical to me that string freeze happens at the 
same time as code freeze.

If it's not the case for 2.8.0, I think late (after code freeze) string 
changes should happen no later than the end of November and be announced 
to the i18n list when they happen.

J-F

May, Megan Marie a écrit :
> Hi J-F, 
>    I wasn't suggesting that there not be a string freeze at all . . . just that timing it to occur at code freeze probably wasn't realistic this round. I believe that string freeze for previous releases was sometime after the 1st of the year.  Is there somewhere between mid-Sept and then that would work?
> 
> Megan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Leveque
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:13 AM
> To: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Update on Strawman schedule for Sakai 2.8 Release Activity
> 
> Sorry, schedule full this week AFAICT.
> 
> ·         Translations/Help/String Freeze
> 
>>> §  MMM:    Is this realistic?    It doesn't seem so for 2.8 . . .  this 
>>> might be something we aim for the next release.  
> 
> It has to become realistic unless we want to discriminate against 
> institutions using Sakai in other languages than English.
> 
> If we're not doing it for 2.8.0, when is the release of the multilingual 
> 2.8.1 planned?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> J-F
> 
> May, Megan Marie a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>>      Per Seth's email, I pulled together a strawman for the 2.8 schedule 
>> and circulated it to the TCC as well as the QA/RM list. 
>>
>> Please see http://confluence.sakaiproject.org//x/8RkhB 
>> <http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/x/8RkhB>   
>>
>>  
>>
>> As I was working through this I had a few thoughts
>>
>> -          Owners need to be /people/ not groups if this is going to work 
>>
>> -          This schedule needs to account for the 2.7.1 and 2.6.3 
>> releases.  Thinking about this in a bubble isn't the way to go. 
>>
>> -          For 2.8 we're going to need to balance what can be done in 
>> the time frame vs what we'd like to do.   The planning ect should have 
>> started months ago so I think it's important we recognize that we are 
>> going to need to be flexible if we're going to release by march
>>
>>  
>>
>> I've outlined the comments below but rather than update the proposal, 
>> wash rinse and repeat, I think it would be a better use of time to set 
>> aside an hour for a conference call to get the basics outlined.    Is 
>> that something people could fit in their schedules this week?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Megan
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Comments on the proposal so far
>>
>> ·         Change Documentation
>>
>> o    AB:  Is there a particular format we'd like the changes documented 
>> in it
>>
>> o    Need to identify who defines format (AB) and who collects info (JF)
>>
>> o    AB:  would like test plans ready at the same time change 
>> documentation is done so this with help with coordinating testing
>>
>> o    JF:  Would like to know if this is going to be manual or if we're 
>> going to use
>>
>> o    Still need to determine scope. Anth thinks we need to figure out 
>> the project team plans ASAP so we can determine which of the 2.8 goals 
>> can be accomplished (ie fixing tools that don't compile in Java 6, 
>> registering events, ect)
>>
>> ·         Tagging
>>
>> o   AW:   Mid-August Alpha tags I think are unrealistic
>>
>> o   RM Call:  Be more realistic to begin to produce alpha tags in 
>> September; after the code freeze
>>
>> ·         Tool Additions and Removals
>>
>> o   Swinsburg:   dates are too early. 
>>
>> o   Swinsburg: Where are the list of tool changes?  
>>
>> §  
>> http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/Sakai+2x+Project+Planning+Goals
>>
>> o   AW:  As a starting point for debate regarding tool promotion:  : no 
>> new capabilities other than CKEditor (if Noah is game)
>>
>> o   AW:  As a starting point for debate regarding tool 
>> removals: Blogger, reports, warehouse; deprecate: profile (remove 2.9).
>>
>>  
>>
>> ·         Code Freeze and Branch Freeze:
>>
>> o    JF:  How how we avoid anything being committed to trunk between the 
>> two? If we cannot, they should be synchronized at least from an svn 
>> point of view on a given svn external.
>>
>> o    RM Call: Kernel Freeze - should be same as code freeze.
>>
>> ·         Indie releases
>>
>> o    JF:   should be branched no later than the main branch freeze. All 
>> indie work should be at least ready at the same time as main code (Help 
>> documentation, String Freeze, Translation ...) and follow the same 
>> rules.  Maybe the first indie release artifact should be available 
>> before the branch freeze.
>>
>> o    Swinsburg: Need to add in indie and code freeze dates.  
>>
>> o    RM Call:   Clay/Nate give heads up on coming new functionality.   
>> Evaluation work should take place during the month of Aug/Early Sept. 
>>
>> ·         Translations/Help/String Freeze
>>
>> o    JF:  If string freeze happens at code freeze, translation of 
>> anything but the help documentation should start then with an 
>> announcement sent to the i18n/L10n WG. The WG is not the owner of the 
>> translations, each language/region/variant is responsible for its own 
>> translation. We should also ask for intend to translate or update the 
>> translation to the i18n/L10n WG.
>>
>> o   JF:  Announcements of English updates ready per help documentation 
>> category should be sent to the i18n WG in order to smooth the 
>> translation process. I think we need a help documentation coordinator.
>>
>> o    JF: The string freeze should happen at code freeze to give more 
>> time to translators. I don't want 2.8.0 to be lacking translation as 
>> much as 2.7.0 is.
>>
>> §  MMM:    Is this realistic?    It doesn't seem so for 2.8 . . .  this 
>> might be something we aim for the next release.  
>>
>> ·         Upgrade Freeze
>>
>> o   JF:   Need to identify impacted areas using maven 
>> versions:display-dependency-updates to identify impacted areas and have 
>> someone coordinate
>>
>> ·         Misc
>>
>> o    Include that mid Dec things slow down and do not pick up until Jan.