One very simple model that I think works well with distributed software (and should play somewhat nice with Gerrit) is to branch per minor release (assuming somewhat semantic versioning). In this model, master can continue to serve as an integration branch, bug fixes are developed against the release branch and merged following each patch release, and features are developed against master per usual. With Gerrit in the mix, you're essentially left with a two-stage merge for bug fixes which can be a bit of extra work to get them merged into master, but at least the pipeline is greased for getting them released.I can't say whether this would fit your team's workflow and, as Corey mentioned, there are many different branching models to consider, each with its own focus and drawbacks.[1][2] The one I've outlined above is geared more for stability and maintenance but can probably be tweaked for more frequent releases of features as well. I'm happy to brainstorm further.On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Corey Floyd <cfloyd@wikimedia.org> wrote:Feature flags would help, but they also add an extra development investment to make sure all features are engineered in a way that a flag can shut them off without other bad things happening (not necessarily a bad thing, but require more effort).Another route to go is to manage this in git using the branches. There are several methodologies for this, and your branching strategy will depend mostly on how the team wants to operate. Pretty much all of them boil down to NOT merging features into master that are not going to be deployed after the current sprint.--On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Tomasz Finc <tfinc@wikimedia.org> wrote:Excited to see this. In order for this to be successful we'll want to
developer a health dashboard for the app and set alarming for it
whenever we dip above/below certain thresholds. One of the challenges
that you face when releasing often is that the amount of attention you
keep during small iterative releases. It's easy to keep very focused
for 2-3 releases but after that attention can drift to just the major
releases. And while it's great to read reviews and find out a
subjective metric of how we're doing we need to get in front of it
with objective metrics.
Thus having an app health dashboard showcasing: search, readership,
editing, etc can easily show you if you've had any regressions. These
would not only be useful for small bug fix releases but would also
help validate our major product releases.
I'll leave it with you guys to define what metrics are necessary to
define a healthy app.
--tomasz
> _______________________________________________
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Dan Garry <dgarry@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There is a long time between production release on Android. The reason for
> this is because we have featured merged into master that are sound from an
> engineering standpoint, but aren't quite ready for release yet. These
> features often block production releases.
>
> As product owner, pushing out regular bug fix builds would make me very
> happy! But there is a requirement that we are able to not push out features
> that are merged but not ready for production yet. This can probably me
> managed by feature flags.
>
> Dan Duvall (on cc) from Release Engineering will consult to help Dmitry and
> Bernd figure out what their process should be for maximum effectiveness.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Mobile-l mailing list
> Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>
_______________________________________________
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Corey FloydSoftware EngineerMobile Apps / iOSWikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
--Dan DuvallAutomation Engineer