On 24 July 2010 17:14, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
Hi koha-devel,
Chris announced that he planned to release a version every 6 months. I'm for a "time based" release management, that's the same thing.
More like I plan to release 3.4 around 6 months after starting it. Rather than planning to release a version every 6 months ;)
Chris has been elected as RM for Koha 3.4 but what will happend in "6 months" when 3.4 is released ? Will we elect a new RM immediatly for 3.6, that will be RM only for 6 months as well. I don't think it would be a good idea to change the RM every 6 months... So, shouldn't the RM be elected for a duration instead of for a version ? it's an open question, so let's start the thread about that...
Some ideas : - 2 years or 3 major releases, the 1st that happend - 2 years - 1 year, that can be continued once (ie : after 1 year : vote to confirm the RM. If not confirmed, then, new elections) - unlimited duration, confirmed every year - ...
A lot of that of course depends on what the RM wants, in my past experience it isn't a very fun job and takes a lot of time. I'm sure the others who have served as release managers/maintainers would agree. I'm not sure I'd be up for doing 2 releases in a row, and I actually think it might be good to change the release manager often. I think working on making the transition easy and making the RM's duties less onerous is the way to go and then shift the duties around each 6 months would be good. I'm very happy to see Owen's blog post about how he works with branches, http://www.myacpl.org/koha/?p=558, if people work like this the RM duties become less difficult. Chris