Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Quality Team report [was Re: Proposals for 3.1]

[WEBER P. <Pat...@co...>]

Hi all,

Thanx Jyhem and Matwho for your kind words :)

About the beta+RC+final, in fact I think it was just a proposition from
Jonny, and I also think it should be OK to release directly without a
beta and an RC.

All changes have been reviewed in details by the Quality Team and things
should be OK. I think it's enough to just make a pre-tarball during the
release, test it, and make the final release if everything is OK.

Cheers,
Nyloth 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Marc Libs [mailto:jea...@gm...] 
Sent: Tuesday 9 June 2009 15:54
To: Tikiwiki developers
Subject: Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Quality Team report [was Re: Proposals for
3.1]

Hi,

This is great news, and I'm glad the Quality team works fine.
Nice job Jonny, Sylvie & Nyloth.
I'm sure the workload should go down from now on.


On 6/9/09, Jonny Bradley <tw...@no...> wrote:
>
>  Dear Tiki Devs


>  I certainly wasn't expecting quite so many commits to branches/
>  proposed all at once, but hopefully that was an unusual occurrence -
>  Nyloth diligently taking all the stuff that probably should have gone
>  into 3.0 but was committed to trunk after the "freeze" (unfortunately
>  that coincided with me being off-line for few days!)

Yes, the "freeze" probably wasn't frozen enough. We saw big changes all
around till the last moment, and then corrections after the release.
I'm sure we can do better next major release.

>  We're gradually working through them and Nyloth's suggesting we do a
>  release (3.1 beta?) on Friday afternoon - i will try to attend (on
>  IRC). I'm not sure quite how the minor release process will go, but
>  i'd guess that one beta, one release candidate then release should be
>  enough?

This is obviously for the Quality Team to decide, but I find it
surprising that
a minor release should have a beta and RC. I never saw that anywhere,
and
the logic evades me.
Let me explain how I see it: this is a stable branche, and everything
between
3.0 and 3.1 has been checked and validated by some of our best devs.
Anything
remotely risky has been rejected. No new feature, only bugfixes.
So my opinion is, 3.1 can only be better than 3.0 and should be
released "as is".
I doubt any regression slipped in, and even if that was the case, it's
better to just
correct it and release 3.2, than call everybody to test a so-called
beta, then a RC.
It's just too much work for everybody involved just to confirm that
all is OK (and
chances are, all is OK, since anything risky was rejected).

Let's not create useless extra work for you guys (and for us testers).
We have
enough useful work in sight :-)

>  So, i better get back to it, just thought we should let you all know
>  what's happening - happy tiki'ing!

Oh, and thanks for all the reviewing,
Jyhem

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited
royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing 
server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
Tikiwiki-devel mailing list
Tik...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel