Thanks for starting the discussion, Matthias! When I was the 1.16 release manager, I checked the dev mailing list to see what the release managers of the previous two versions did throughout the release cycle. In release 1.16, after each release sync meeting, we would send a summary email, which can help capture how the release cycle has progressed. So we may not really need a dedicated retrospective meeting. But I think it's a good idea to have a wiki to summarize and review what can be improved after we finish a release. For example, the release cycle for 1.16 was also longer than expected. It took almost three months from the feature freeze to our final official release, a month longer than expected.
Best, Xingbo Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com> 于2022年11月3日周四 04:56写道： > Hi all, > > I figure it is a good idea and +1 for the async retro. More developers will > learn from what the release process looks like, which will give them > context to engage in future releases. It would be great if the conversation > could somehow follow the traditional retro pattern, e.g. tagged with > "Liked, learned, Lacked, and Longed for". > > Best regards, > Jing > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 11:21 AM Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > I think it's a good idea to capture how this release cycle has > progressed. > > I'm not sure that a classical "retrospective" is the best solution, since > > it would require multiple people in different timezones to attend a > virtual > > meeting. > > > > So I would +1 an async retrospective, which could be the questions that > you > > would normally ask during a retrospective yet but now via a > questionnaire. > > It probably makes sense to have a proposal of the questions that can be > > asked, discuss them and then sent them out. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Martijn > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:42 AM Qingsheng Ren <re...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion Matthias! > > > > > > I think having a retro after a release cycle would be quite helpful to > > > standardizing the procedure of the release, and also could avoid new > > > release managers getting stuck on the same issue that happened before. > I > > > prefer the second option that RMs could open a discussion thread in ML > at > > > the end of the release to collect feedback about the last release cycle > > and > > > add them to the release wiki page, which would be quite handy for > further > > > RMs. > > > > > > Best, > > > Qingsheng > > > Ververica (Alibaba) > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:02 PM Matthias Pohl > > > <matthias.p...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I want to bring up the idea of having a retrospective on the release > > from > > > > the release manager's perspective. The idea would be to collect > > feedback > > > on > > > > what went well and what could be improved for a specific minor > release. > > > So > > > > far, I didn't find anything on that topic. Does the community find > this > > > > useful? Or was this already done but not helpful? > > > > > > > > I see three options here: > > > > 1. Having an actual meeting where issues can be discussed and/or > > > > experiences can be shared between the release managers of the > previous > > > > release and the release managers of the next minor release. Of > course, > > > this > > > > could be open to other contributors as well. A summary could be > > provided > > > in > > > > the Flink wiki (the Flink release's wiki article). > > > > 2. The release manager(s) provide a summary on the Flink release's > wiki > > > > article as part of the release process. > > > > 3. Leave the process as is without any additional retrospective but > > focus > > > > on improving the documentation if issues arose during the release. > > > > > > > > That might help people who consider contributing to the community > > through > > > > supporting the release efforts. Additionally, it might help in > > > > understanding what went wrong in past releases retroactively (e.g. > the > > > > longer release cycle for 1.15). > > > > > > > > I'm curious about opinion's on that topic. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > >
