On 21/09/14 22:41, Markus Glaser wrote:
Hi Isarra,
Why is this ahead of schedule? Two months before
release seems pretty reasonable to me; ...
You don't want to rush this stuff, especially when balancing with breaking changes in
the next release.
It's ahead of the planned release schedule [1] by a few
weeks. The real issues is, though, that the branching was not announced a week beforehand,
as planned. As you point out, the whole tarball release of a major version should not be
done in a rush. This also implies giving developers, especially when it comes to
extensions, some time ahead to include their work (in progress) into the branch without a
lot of backporting.
That's not what I asked. Ignoring for the moment that the schedule only
appeared after the 1.24 branch was made, why was that what was planned?
Also, 1.24 has
already had wmf22 branched. Shouldn't this
mean master should be going onto 1.25 now anyway?
IMHO, the issue is that we have
no clear responsibilities here. The Foundation sets the date for switching to wmf1.2x+1.
Probably this should this be the trigger for the 6 week tarball release process. On the
other hand, we have a monthly tarball release cycle and announced dates for releases which
a lot of non-WMF users refer to. So we need to coordinate this. Mind you, I do not want to
totally stick to the 6 week process we have lined out, there is of course flexibility. But
it needs some coordination before the branching is acually made. I assume it is within the
responsibilities of WikiReleaseTeam to make sure this coordination takes place (in the
future). Personally, I also think the WikiReleaseTeam should do the acutal branching and
communication about this.
Let me be clear about one thing: this is a matter of unclear responsibilites. I'm not
blaming anyone personally for what they did. Let's clarify the process (maybe here on
this list) and make _better_ mistakes tomorrow :)
Best,
Marks
[1]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiReleaseTeam/Release_timeline
Is it not your responsibility to coordinate this with the WMF, and make
sure ahead of time that all the dates line up? Why wasn't this done?
Given that they run on their own schedule, and that most developers also
do things on their own time, I'm not sure how viable a 'montly release
cycle' actually is, either. Updates should go out when they're ready,
not on specified dates, and this doesn't just apply to security fixes
(though they are particularly important), but the main releases too. We
just all need to know ahead of time what the status of these is so we
can coordinate our own patches, updates, etc accordingly.
-I