Sebastien, Nope, we don't do votes on the users@ list. That list is just for user support.
Decision making happens on dev@*, and if users want to take part in that, they can subscribe. * Or marketing@, private@, and security@ On 27 May 2013 08:53, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 24, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:41:30AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > >> As a way to get more user feedback on our major feature releases, what > >> does everyone think about releasing one or two -beta releases for each > >> major feature release? > >> > >> This might fall in line with some of the stated concerns about our > >> release schedule (see [1]). I've stated a desire to be quicker about > >> our releases (my vote was 4 months). I've also been saying quite > >> publicly that we should never release if we know about upgrade issues > >> (that's the cost of having actual users of our project, which I'm more > >> than willing for us to pay). > >> > >> Perhaps -betaX releases would be helpful to get attention from the users > >> to test the release (including upgrade paths). The stated assumption > >> could be: -beta releases are not releases that can be upgraded *from*, > >> but are intended to help support testing by end users that want to check > >> the upcoming release against their expected feature set and upgrade > >> path. > >> > >> I would see the first -beta-1 being released about 1 month after feature > >> freeze. For example, for 4.2.0, it would be on 2013-06-30. I would > >> only do a -beta-2 (or later) beta release if required due to testing > >> results. I would also suggest that the -beta-* releases would *not* > >> have any particular quality criteria (well... perhaps minimal, like > >> blocking on issues that fundamentally make the software unstable). > >> > >> I'm not sure about my own proposal here, but I wanted to throw it out > >> and see if any of you have feedback / thoughts. > >> > >> -chip > >> > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/3ctdwor5hfbpa3vx > > > > To summarize the discussions of this thread: > > > > 1) The idea of ensuring that we get user testing of release candidates > > is one that most agree with. > > > > 2) Concerns were raised about the overhead of "officially" releasing > > beta releases, especially if there is any expectation that there would > > be an upgrade path from a -beta to an official release. > > > > I'd like to simplify this by saying that we should actually plan on > > announcing the start of each round of voting on RC's to the users@ list. > > We can get feedback from them on each round. > > Why don't we include users@ in the voting thread in the first place ? > The entire community can vote, correct ? committers and non-committers. > > Asking @users for feedback make it sound a little bit like feedback is > welcome but not voting. > > > And while I don't really > > love having a bunch of rounds of voting, 4.1.0 has basically proven that > > user engagement testing the RC's is critical. I think that we might > > also consider (at a release manager's discretion) periodically > > announcing a request for testing of the feature branch's code during the > > QA part of our release cycles. > > +1 > > > > > Shout if you disagree. > > -- NS
