[ckan-dev] release date for 2.4

Wed Mar 18 15:14:02 UTC 2015

Steven,

We do 'point-point' releases (e.g. 2.3.1) without a timetable. It might be
a sudden security issue, or back-ports, released with an appropriate
urgency. Point-point releases have an established meaning, process and
frequency. So unless there is support for a change, I think the tech team
should be left to manage the details of these.

We're discussing normal 'point' releases (e.g. 2.4) which have been every 3
or 4 months. I don't see why you'd want to delay them to 6 months. I think
it's great that you're drumming up interest and people for new features,
but they can slot in whichever release is next whenever they are ready.
There's no reason to delay hum-drum releases, with fixes and general
improvements that devs really appreciate, every 3 months.

Dave

On 18 March 2015 at 14:56, Steven De Costa <
steven.decosta at linkdigital.com.au> wrote:

> Thanks David. Regular patch releases sound great, needed and appropriate.
> So 2.3.1, 2.3.2, etc.
>
> Six months would be a good target for 2.4 if we were to consider more
> significant structure updates via such a cycle.
>
> And, if feature freeze was done in four then it gives vendors two months
> to update integrations, etc. Then the whole world moves forward with the
> release together.
>
> I think CKAN is the kind of thing that can be a core component of
> other hybrid systems so I'd hope to encourage such adoption.
>
> Please don't let any of these ideas slow anyone down though. When I'm back
> in the office next week I'll be working through the roadmap features with
> our team and picking a few to tackle. The main on I'd like Link to help
> with is the first time install to make it so easy my mum could do it.
>
> Hoots!
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015, David Read <david.read at hackneyworkshop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> *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/c59e936a/attachment-0003.html>