[Koha-devel] Release Manager 3.6

[Kyle Hall]

Another vote for keeping the current workflow. Chris has done a
fantastic job as RM, nothing else needs to be said.

Kyle

http://www.kylehall.info
Mill Run Technology Solutions ( http://millruntech.com )
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )
Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org )




On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Chris Cormack <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Recently I have been having a crisis of confidence. I have, I hope,
> always tried to do what I think is best for the project. Often I do
> make mistakes, a notable one happened in 2007, which I hope I in part
> was rectified in 2008. But my underlying motivation with Koha has
> always been to do the best for the users of the software.
> In my role as Release Manager for 3.4 (and again for 3.6) what I felt
> was best for the software users was a stable and well tested release.
> This is something I made clear in my proposal, and which I had assumed
> was understood (but you know what they say about assumptions ;)). With
> the huge amount of work put in by over 80 people, I think we managed
> to achieve some measure of success with that with 3.4.0 and that the
> stability of the 3.2.x releases is something we can all be proud of.
>
> Over the last couple of weeks, comments and mails both on and off list
> have made me think that maybe I am out of step with what the community
> desires. For 3.6 quality was still the major goal, but perhaps I have
> misjudged what others want.  This has resulted in sleepless nights and
> quite a large amount of self doubt.
>
> Luckily we are still early in the 3.6 cycle, there is time to fix it.
>
> Options as I see them
> 1/ Continue with the current workflow, patches signed off, passed qa,
> then into master, with the goal to increase the rate patches are
> signed off
> 2/ Refine the workflow to make signing off easier
> 3/ Redesign the workflow eliminating sign off (for a period, or all of
> the release)
> 4/ Step aside to let someone else have a go at RM
>
> As Paul has noted in another thread, I am not comfortable with
> allowing patches into master untested, and I don't think I could do a
> good job as RM if that were to become the case. In that case I would
> rather become one of the developers submitting patches again, so
> perhaps 3 and 4 are the same for me.
>
> So, in the interest of transparency and openness, there's where my
> head and heart are. I wish what is best for the users of Koha, and I
> fear that maybe I am out of step.
>
> Comments?
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
>