[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Release Train Participation
- From: Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:34:28 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
>> Which ones are the most taxing?
> Must dos, release train communication/coordination overhead, plan and review materials creation, IP/licensing/legal stuff, releng for release train builder....all are taxing in my view.
Can you say specifically which must dos are things that are above and beyond what you normally do for releases?
For the plan, release review and IP elements, can you point out things that are unique to the train vs. normal releases?
Any thoughts on how to make the release train builder interaction less taxing would be great. I'm sure that David and crew would love to lower the barriers there.
>> Which are the ones you feel do not apply?
> I don't understand what you mean.
Sorry, I was unclear. The topic is "what *extra* stuff do projects have to do to be on the release train vs. doing a normal release". So, specifically, which must do requirements would ECF skip when putting out a normal release. Perhaps those should be reconsidered or do not apply to RT projects in general or...
>> Are you seeing IP costs over and above those of doing a regular release?
Can you be specific about IP elements related to release train participation vs. normal releases? The train should be a collection of releases and should not be adding any IP overhead so perhaps there is something askew.
>> Got it. I think everyone would be in favour of reducing the burdens.
> If everyone is in favor, then perhaps they can/should actually be reduced instead of increased.
Yup. Identifying the must dos that are particularly burdensome or only partially relevant seems like a good way to start. Getting the specifics of ECF experiences and perspective would help drive that forward. That is the goal of the questions above.
>> First step is to identify the ones that are excess. Perhaps the ECF team can share their views on this with the aim to eliminate or qualify the requirements.
> I believe I've shared mine...
To make progress I think we need specifics about the mustdos that are problematic. Eliminating all must dos is likely not going to work and cutting out the ones that are not a problem for ECF won't help you so, which ones do you want to see mitigated?
> I would encourage other project leads and committers (both ECF's and other project's committers) to make their views known publicly (as opposed to privately...e.g. via council).
Absolutely. Especially if there are things that broadly do not apply to RT projects for example, this would be great to identify.