If it helps, a monthly release seems to be the sweet spot for fwupd, from a "writing release notes" and "getting fixes into users hands" point of view. There's no point having a "no regressions" rule as this is software, and even the most benign of changes can have some unknown side effect -- it's much better to just make releases "cheap" and do lots of them. In fwupd the main branch is always "releasable" so if we have a high-priority fix or security issue we just merge, write release notes, tag, push outside the usual release cadence.
Richard
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 12:24, Edward O'Callaghan quasisec@google.com wrote:
I very much like Richard's pragmatic approach here.
It would be my view that we should re-evaluate branch critical bugs (sb600spi map issue + build system stuff are the two the most prominent in my mind at the moment) and just cut a release branch, stabilise that with some cherry-picks of any residue items. Forge forwards from that with a more regular cadence exactly how Richard suggests. If some critical issue comes up we can do a point release.
Kindest regards, Edward.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 20:27, Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Perhaps a way forward would be to tag a rc release, ask distributors to package and test it (e.g. pushing to Fedora Rawhide, but not Fedora 36), and then push the actual official release a week or two later?
Certainly aiming to do releases monthly is much healthier than doing releases every few years. I think it's much more achievable to set the expectation to the end user "sorry for the regression! it'll be fixed in your distro in ~3 weeks, in the meantime use the previous release" than trying to squash every bug and add all the features before tagging a mythical beautiful bug-free "feature complete" release.
Richard.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 10:19, Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Anastasia,
On 16.10.22 23:41, Anastasia Klimchuk wrote:
Nico what was the goal why you started this thread?
I wanted to evaluate how immediate a release is. Also, maybe subconsciously (on my end), to raise awareness among developers that we want to do releases.
I learned some new things between my first two emails, overall that has changed my intentions to raising awareness.
I thought for a moment, you have a *quick* question. So I answered. Now you seem to be unhappy to learn that we are closer to the release than 1/2 yr ago.
It seems hard to assess to me. I want to make sure that we don't miss anything. For instance, the progress in the tickets: A lot have been closed. But some of them look like they were low-hanging fruits, i.e. easy to fix. While bigger issues remain and at least one new issue popped up, as you mentioned. I find it very hard to measure.
You are saying "But I don't believe you", what was the point of asking then?
I did not say that nor did I intend to make it look like this. I still feel misunderstood and that we are talking past each other. I didn't mean to ask "how many tickets are open" or "what was merged". These are things that are easily visible. I guess what I really want to know is "did the regression rate decline?", "does it look like the review process changed enough so that it could?".
Nico
PS. Anastasia, there is a lot of "you, you, you" in your email. This can get very emotional. I don't see a need to get personal nor to fight. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-leave@flashrom.org
flashrom mailing list -- flashrom@flashrom.org To unsubscribe send an email to flashrom-leave@flashrom.org