[sakai2-tcc] Maintenance Branches: Enhancement vs Bug Merges

Fri Dec 3 09:48:49 PST 2010

The point isn't about what a particular school would do, it's about freeing up EVERYONE so that more time can be spent on working on community issues.

~Me

-----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: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:36 PM
To: Anthony Whyte
Cc: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee; mt at collab.sakaiproject.org; Alan Berg
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Maintenance Branches: Enhancement vs Bug Merges

I would really like to know about the community work IU or UMich could do.

Cheers,

J-F

Anthony Whyte a écrit :
> Jumping to paragraph three:  Beth's point is an important one; we should look for ways to simplify local patching and deployment strategies.  Matt Jones had what I thought was an important email last week relative to some of the challenges facing UMich deployments as they work to manage 50+ patches--an email that unfortunately garnered no discussion.  It would be interesting to learn more about the nature and distribution of UMich's patches (local idiosyncratic patching vs fixes of a general nature currently not in 2.7.x; contrib tool patching vs core tool patching, etc.) and then discuss what we as a community could do to ease the burden on local deployers.
> 
> If schools like UMich or IU had less need to patch their local releases we might find ourselves with more resources available for community work.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Anth
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 3, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Beth Kirschner wrote:
> 
>> I'd agree with Anthony that requiring 3 institutions to test is pretty much disables the original intent of the proposal and Alan Berg's concern that "Sakai 2.x ... does not change functionally fast enough". 
>>
>> Additionally, as many of you know, I do advocate for better internationalization, and I think the requirement to try out the change in at least 2 languages isn't necessarily effective. Translations continue to be incomplete due to the difficulty of  updating properties files, and testing in 2 languages may be impossible. Perhaps a better approach would be to (1) require that any change be properly internationzalized (as described by our best practices), and any change that requires new translation be part of the announcement to production that Anthony suggested.
>>
>> In regards to John Bush's comment about this change "enabling" the 
>> trend of larger institutions moving slower, I can speak to UM's 
>> intentions and this will really not make any difference to our 
>> upgrade paths, but it will make our current patch & build process a 
>> lot simpler :-)
>>
>> - Beth
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Report "at-your-own-risk" enhancement to get others to try it 
>>> with you and get a minimum of 3 total with at least 2 languages
>>> 2) After 30 days in production, you offer it to others who didn't 
>>> want to take small risks
>>>
>>> If only one or two want it enough to try it in production, why including it for all?
>>>
>>> 30 days for enhancements is not long when fixes with patches 
>>> provided and maintenance releases are waiting longer than that. :(
>>>
>>> J-F
>>>
>>> Anthony Whyte a écrit :
>>>> Consider a small enhancement targeted at 2.6.x.  If ANU run with it and Steve Swinsburg reports back in 30 (or x days) that the enhancement is safe then in my view the "in production" requirement is satisfied.
>>>> Attempting to organize three schools to test out what is being described in the proposal as small, low-risk changes is overkill and guaranteed to stretch out the process unnecessarily.
>>>> Anth
>>>> On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>>>>> I could remove the last one if Alan or a majority of the MT thinks it's not needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first one is needed of i18n and I think the delay of one month is really small as far as maintenance branch releases are concerned. Furthermore, if less than three institutions are using a change, is it really needed for all?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, I don't want lots of merges to be done on a maintenance branch if we're not tagging releases out of them for small institutions. Right now 2.6.3 and 2.7.1 are 3 months old. If we're not releasing 2.6.4 and 2.7.2 in December, I think it should be planned for January.
>>>>>
>>>>> J-F
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Whyte a écrit :
>>>>>> The addition of the following two requirements to the proposal effectively scuttles any chance that low risk, "small" enhancements will be added to maintenance branches in either a timely or efficient manner.
>>>>>> *The change has been running in production for one month minimum 
>>>>>> in at least three institutions including one using Sakai in 
>>>>>> another language than English *The change only affects code that 
>>>>>> has full automated test coverage and includes full automated tests for its changes Anth On Dec 3, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>>>>>>> I've updated to make it more restrictive for obvious QA reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please, keep debate open until at least next Friday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J-F
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beth Kirschner a écrit :
>>>>>>>> How's this: http://confluence.sakaiproject.org//x/bBFJB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we ready for a vote or are there more comments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Beth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:11 PM, May, Megan Marie wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can someone volunteer to pull together this proposal on a Confluence page in the TCC space?   Megan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org 
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf 
>>>>>>>>> Of Steve Swinsburg
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:34 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: csev
>>>>>>>>> Cc: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Maintenance Branches: Enhancement vs 
>>>>>>>>> Bug Merges
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is stuff you want to see running in a production 2.6, send it our way (ANU). And within this TCC I'm sure there would also be other eager candidates to test on 2.7?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03/12/2010, at 3:55 AM, csev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like this notion in general - in particular the non-distruptive bit and the option to turn off.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think a big issue will be how many versions back do we push something and who will QA those previous release branches.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see a great benefit to schools back a level or two to back-port something to the 2-6-x branch as it allows them to eliminate a local patch earlier in their process and makes moving to new versions easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However - I think that we need to have a school eager and ready to test and run something we are back porting.  So if some school is on 2.6 and there is a new feature that meets the criteria and wants it pulled back into 2-6-x - that school or those schools that want to run the patch should be willing to help in the testing of the 2-6-x branch after the code has been back ported.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that unless there is a strong advocate and resources to support for a back port of a feature we should leave the older branches alone - we need to be mindful that community resources for QA/release are not unlimited.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:50 AM, David Horwitz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would add:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) If behaviour changes it should be configurable and set to 
>>>>>>>>>>> off (current behaviour) in the branch
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/2010 03:32 PM, Beth Kirschner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The line between a "bug" and and "enhancement" is sometimes blurry (especially if we broaden the definition of "bug" to include usability problems). Additionally there are often small enhancements, low in risk and high in impact that have to wait a full year for release to the community code base because of our policy of only merging bug-fixes into maintenance branches. Some institutions can mitigate these long waits by maintaining their own release branches (msub) and pulling in enhancements early. Not everyone has the resources to to this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose that we rationalize the process for merging small tasks & enhancements into a maintenance branch as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Small enhancements and tasks may be merged into a maintenance branch if the following conditions are met:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The change is narrow in scope (modest changes to a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> single project)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The change does not require database changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) The change is running in production at some institution
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An example of a good candidate for this type of task is http://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/SAK-11003, which is running in production at multiple institutions (merged to their institutions's msub branches), but which will not be available to the broader Sakai community until 2.8 is released.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This conversation feels familiar to me and it seems we may have discussed and agreed to this in the past, but wanted to bring up the topic with this group for a discussion and vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Beth
_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc