From: Brian G. P. <br...@br...> - 2005-03-27 16:52:34
|
I am an active developer/manager in many open source projects, and have used StatCVS for several years/versions. So, my comments come from this perspective. On Wednesday 23 March 2005 03:54 pm, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > So what can I do to improve the release process? I'd Start with nightly builds. I find that these often allow people who can't or won't build the software themselves to test new features as they make it into CVS. If you have JUnit tests for StatCVS, place a link to the test results on the same page as the nightly build tarball. This communicates to developers and users what the potential state of the code is without requiring constant effort on your part. > Publish release candidates? > Offer a stable and a beta download? My usual approach is to publish a release candidate when the development team thinks the code is ready for release, and usually allow a few days for testing. People are generally quite responsive to calls for testing a release candidate. I don't maintain a separate branch in CVS for the release candidate, as the entire process usually only takes a few days. This is a little different on a large project like Squirrelmail. The Squirrelmail development is *always* split into Stable and Development branches, and changes are merged back to stable form development. StatCVS does not seem to be a large enough project to require the level of effort that goes with maintaining two separate CVS branches. > Just stop worrying about bugs and release without much testing? Nightly builds with a test process will find a lot of bugs (though not all of them!) > What do you think? How should an open source release process for a > project like StatCVS work? Both developer's and user's point of views > are welcome. Thanks for the great software! I rely on it to keep an eye on what the development team is doing across multiple projects. StatCVS has been a great help to me, keep it up! Regards, - Brian |