[ckan-dev] release date for 2.4

[David Read]

Clearly frequent releases are necessary. I can't tell how you got the 6
months figure but it doesn't feel frequent enough to me. If someone is
doing a block of customizing, it might take 1 or 2 months. If they want a
new feature or bugfix and its not going to be released for several months
then they are more likely to fix it themselves on their own fork of ckan,
will be further from master and less likely to contribute it back.

The 2.3 release was exceptional for being almost 13 months after 2.2.
Nearly all previous releases were spaced 3 or 4 months after the previous
one.

The policy has been to just release regularly every three months. This was
disrupted in the last release by the premature merging of a large and
incomplete feature, and perhaps the notion that OKF was passing
responsibility for releases to the CKAN Association. If we work to keep the
master branch in a useful state then it shouldn't become an issue again.

What does need addressing is the cost of doing a release. I guessing it is
a few days work. I think the tech team should review it, minimize the cost
and codify it to make it easier for other people to do it, aside from Adria.

David

On 16 March 2015 at 14:40, Steven De Costa <
steven.decosta at linkdigital.com.au> wrote:

> Two thumbs up is a good start :)
>
> I'd add that part of the motivation for routine six month releases is to
> allow a commercial ecosystem to then build their own roadmap on top of that
> of CKAN cycle.
>
> This will help paid members of the association justify the business case
> for investment in the project, whether it's in-kind or cash.
>
> The main idea I have for release management is to break apart the product
> definition from the product development and product support workloads. Then
> we can recruit different types of people with great skills into each area
> of effort. (No exclusions though. People can get involved in all areas if
> they wish)
>
> In addition, the product definition team would release EOIs to identify if
> there are funding sources that could then be used to accelerate development
> of features. A fund for feature X would then be market demand driven. The
> vendors listed as CKAN suppliers could then pitch to develop feature X as a
> paid project.
>
> Some conflict of interests need to be managed, but I figure that would be
> a great problem to have if we first had the funding created :)
>
> The C&C Team would have the job to promote roadmap features and attract
> funding.
>
> I think much of the technical release management would remain in the tech
> team as it has. They'd just have a deadline constraint for shipping. But,
> they potentially have a lot more support from other teams too.
>
> My own experience with 2.3 was that I really wanted to help, but for
> various reasons it was hard. A lot of my suggestions here are taken from
> that experience and thinking about ways companies like mine or initiatives
> people like me can support might more easily be leveraged to ship new
> features.
>
> I have zero criticism and all applause for everyone involved in the 2.3
> release. In fact my deep gratitude is a debt I need to repay.
>
> #WeAreCKAN
> Steven
>
>
> On Monday, March 16, 2015, Claire Reis <Claire.Reis at umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>
>>  I think releasing 2.4 in September is a great idea as well.  Geospatial
>> is also of interest to our group as we add more datasets and upgrade our
>> CKAN instance (http://130.179.67.140/).
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d also be interested to hear more about your plans for release planning
>> and management activities Steven.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Claire
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ross Jones [mailto:ross at servercode.co.uk]
>> *Sent:* March 16, 2015 03:37
>> *To:* CKAN Development Discussions
>> *Subject:* Re: [ckan-dev] release date for 2.4
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>>
>>
>> That sounds great to me - what does everyone else think? It's be great to
>> get the community's opinion on whether that would be too soon, just about
>> right etc?
>>
>>
>>
>> My hope is that with more frequent releases the upgrade process would be
>> even simpler and we can share around the workload of managing the release.
>>
>>
>>
>> We've had a couple of people express interest in Geospatial and Workflow
>> as things that could be prioritised - and I think, particularly the
>> workflow in particular might be a really good place to start.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 14 Mar 2015, at 03:39, Steven De Costa <
>> steven.decosta at linkdigital.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Further to the comment from Ross about the roadmap and heading toward a
>> 2.4 release I discussed this with Rufus last night.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm keen for us to target 4 September as the release date and work
>> backwards from that as a hard deadline.
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the reactions to that date and suggested approach?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm keen to pull more people into the dev work and would do whatever I
>> can to help. I say that also from my C&C Team and Steering Group
>> perspectives.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also have a few ideas on how to support release planing and management
>> activities, largely from a non dev track, so that the dev folks can be 100%
>> on the code and coolness of CKAN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *STEVEN DE COSTA *|
>> *EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR *www.linkdigital.com.au
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ckan-dev mailing list
>> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-dev
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *STEVEN DE COSTA *|
> *EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR*www.linkdigital.com.au
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-dev/attachments/20150318/7775cf9e/attachment-0003.html>