Yes, I think we need to space our releases further apart. I had big trouble when master was unstable for a while and specially on VMware it was difficult to deploy and test features. Yes for each issue I could have shouted on mail list I saw people doing that but the fact is that instability was around for a while. Doesn't it make sense that in such scenarios we could do things in a more pro active manner. Again I donot see much difference in asking someone on Jira to pick a issue vs sending a email, but will agree to whatever the community decides here.
Also community members should volunteer to own some part so that in above circumstances a person looking for some fix can approach that member, once again a suggestion. On 11-Apr-2013, at 5:17 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > Of course releases are important. > > But if our current cadence is putting too much pressure on the community, > one option might be to do our releases further apart from each other. Or, > we get strict about the principal of time based releases: i.e. if your > feature is not ready for the freeze, then it doesn't make it in. No big > deal. If it's ready for the next freeze, then we'll ship it then. > > Also, I may be reading your message wrong, but there's no need for this to > be a divisive argument. There are no "sides" to this. As a community, it is > up to us all to identify our problems, and figure out solutions. > > So what problems do you think we'll run in to if we stop assigning the > majority of bugs, and how do you think we can mitigate those problems? Or > do you have another idea in mind altogether? > > > > > On 11 April 2013 12:40, Abhinandan Prateek > <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com>wrote: > >> I think it will be good if we also find out a process so that the release >> cycle is not affected by unclaimed bugs sitting out there. Here I am >> assuming the releases are important. >> >> I guess the discussion has turned into keeping things free without >> offering solutions to problems that that system will create. >> >> >> On 11/04/13 5:04 PM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Apr 11, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11 April 2013 11:22, Abhinandan Prateek >>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 7-8 days is a huge time lost. I was suggesting that this to be 3 days. >>>>> Let >>>>> other community members chime in too. >>>> >>>> >>>> I should have replied to this in my previous missive. But I want to >>>> reenforce how unhealthy I believe this practice is. 7-8 days, or even 3 >>>> days "being a huge time loss" makes absolutely no sense to me at all. >>>> Assigning a bug should not mean it gets fixed any faster. If it does, >>>> then >>>> we need to change the way we are working. (And if this means changing >>>> the >>>> JIRA ticket workflow, then so be it. If something isn't working for us, >>>> we >>>> change it.) >>>> >>>> In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should think of assigning >>>> bugs >>>> as an exclusionary practice. Every time you assign a bug, you're >>>> shutting >>>> out the community. That's how we should think about it. Assign the bug, >>>> shut out the community. And so, I would say we should try to avoid doing >>>> it, unless it is absolutely necessary. (Such as when you're >>>> co-ordinating >>>> some release critical work, or when you, yourself, are about to start >>>> work >>>> on something. Of course, it's perfectly fine to shut out the community, >>>> if >>>> you're doing that at the same time as starting work on something!) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> NS > > > -- > NS
