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

[Bjoern Baumbach]

On 06/18/2012 12:26 PM, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> 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.

I totally agree on that.

Björn