Release Manager : how long (open question)
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. 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 - ... -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
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
Le 24/07/2010 09:56, Chris Cormack a écrit :
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. yes and no. switching RM will probably need a few weeks, if not a few months: time to elect the RM, for the RM to propose new workflows if he wants, new coding rules, and all those things. So switching every 6 months looks too often to me. I think 12 months is a minimum.
any other opinion ? -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Paul Poulain wrote back in August:
Le 24/07/2010 09:56, Chris Cormack a écrit : [...]
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. yes and no. switching RM will probably need a few weeks, if not a few months: time to elect the RM, for the RM to propose new workflows if he wants, new coding rules, and all those things. So switching every 6 months looks too often to me. I think 12 months is a minimum.
any other opinion ?
I think 6 months is fine as an ambition. Once we have a workflow that works for us and produces releases about that often, I think the community should be suspicious of RMs who want to change too much. But I won't be surprised if it takes a few loops to reach it. Belatedly, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work http://www.software.coop/products/
participants (3)
-
Chris Cormack -
MJ Ray -
Paul Poulain