Blockers in Bugfix-Releases (Re: [Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.6 on May 31 (was May 24)?)

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

Am 18.06.2012 12:23, schrieb Volker Lendecke:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:03:21PM +0200, Karolin Seeger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:06:50AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> The problem is, for each of us our pet feature is that certain key
>>> feature :-).  I still hold that 'regression' is the only standard we can
>>> all agree on. 
>>
>> I don't agree. I agree that your statement is valid in most cases, but
>> there are some key features that must work IMHO. Maybe we need to write down
>> these functionalities. Btw, when XP clients cannot be joined, it's a
>> regression. 
>>
>> I would really like to hear Volker's and Jeremy's point of view regarding
>> the regressions. In the past, I had several times the impression that we
>> do need blocker bugs (and that the use of them was not abused).
>> Maybe you guys would like to comment.
> 
> While I haven't read this whole thread in entirety, Michael
> has asked me to respond to this mail.
> 
> I am a big fan of schedule-based releases. Every x weeks we
> ship a new minor release. Period. No exceptions. What is
> ready at week x-1 goes in, what is not ready does not. Even
> if we ship with known bugs, this is better than not shipping
> at all for months. This completely removes the burden to
> make a bug a blocker or not. If we ship with known problems
> it is not *that* bad because we know we will ship in a
> timely fashion later. If a known problem is considered
> severe and is fixed significantly before the next scheduled
> release, we could consider doing a release in between.
> 
> Security releases are different. I would say that we can
> ship a release with a known security problem as long as it
> is not public yet. When we go public, it is the #1 reason to
> do an immediate intermediate release.
> 
> Just my 2ct,

I fully agree on that:-)

The important thing is that the next release is better than the current one,
we don't need to wait until the next release is perfect.

metze

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120618/67b3425b/attachment.pgp>