[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.16 release criteria
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: 2.16 release criteria |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:25:42 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:06:42AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> I have the fear that the desire to get to this state might prompt some
> regression fixes that have not necessarily gotten all the diligence that
> would have been desirable.
This is a valid fear in general, but I haven't seen it happen yet.
Granted, I don't usually review scheme or C++ patches, so perhaps
people have been sneaking bad bugfixes in that way? But I
somewhat doubt that.
> So I am not sure that a "timed release"
No. Absolutely not.
Yes, it might be good to change the release policy. But I will
not accept any discussion along those lines. We discussed matters
to death in GOP. It hasn't even been 12 months! What's the point
of having a serious policy discussion if it's going to change in a
few months?
In the summer, I will begin GOP2, and we will begin by reviewing
every single policy decision made in GOP. It will be understood
that whatever policies we agree upon in GOP 2 will hold for at
least the next year. We may end up having a yearly review of such
policies.
> On the plus side, regressions are being addressed vigorously right now.
> Other bugs, however, get to see this vigor as well, leading to more
> regressions in their wake.
I think we're looking at about 30% Critical regressions due to
code in the past year. Solution? More eyes on reviews and/or
more regtests.
The bulk of Critical regressions happened during the long 2.13
process. Those block a stable release on the basis of last year's
policy discussions. To make matters worse, we've begun a big
review of the regression tests. I guessimate that we currently
have between 5 and 20 broken regtests; the regtest review will
probably find those.
In the long term, I think we're doing fine. For the first time
ever, we're not regularly breaking regtests. I cannot emphasize
how important this is -- back when I was handling bugs, I would
see 1-2 broken regtests every devel release. Unforuntately we're
in for some more pain in the next few months as we discover
previously-broken tests, but once that's shaken down, we'll have a
trustworthy set of regression tests.
- Graham