[Swift-devel] Next Swift release
Michael Wilde
wilde at mcs.anl.gov
Thu Dec 9 08:33:23 CST 2010
My thinking on this is:
- trunk has many fixes that the users Im working with depend on, in particular to coasters.
- most users Ive worked with are running trunk from builds Ive placed on a range of machines
- I *suspect* that trunk is as stable as branches/1.0
- the main point of this release effort is to test a release on a set of site configs, in addition to the localhost language tests
- if we're doing that, we should push forward and test a branch of today's trunk (call it branches/0.91) and make trunk pass those tests.
- if we see that this 0.91 does not readily pass site-based stress tests, we can fall back and run those same tests against branches/0.91. In this case I would do some re-naming: 1.0 to 0.91, and trunk to 0.92 - i.e. saving the "1.0" number for a release that does more cleanup of docs and config tools, and is timed for a point when we can do more effective publicity for it.
Thats what I would like to do. I suspect that the work to get trunk stable (ie passing site-based stress tests) vs the current branches/1.0 stable will be about equal. Even if testing on a trunk-based release takes us longer (ie stretches into January) I feel it will be worth the effort.
Mihael, I'd see two major tasks you'd need to take on in this: integration of branches/1.0 fixes and trunk fixes into 0.91 (or 0.92 if we want to allow a fallback), and fixing bugs deemed to be release showstoppers.
Can we all live with this plan and move forward on it now?
- Mike
----- Original Message -----
> So I am currently of the opinion that we should first release
> branches/1.0. In that process, we should try to see if we can
> streamline
> our release process such that future releases are easier to do.
>
> Traditionally, Ben was the one to do releases and that worked so I
> didn't ask questions.
>
> I say that because of the amount of testing that 1.0 has received.
> It may be that trunk is equally stable, but the uncertainty about that
> is higher, and I think that the point of having stable branches is to
> reduce that uncertainty.
>
> There is probably going to be a conflict between stability and
> features
> when it comes to stable branch vs. trunk, and I think that it boils
> down
> to the weight we put on each of those qualities.
>
> But it's ultimately up to you (plural).
>
> Mihael
>
> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:15 -0800, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> > mike wilde was suggesting that trunk and branches/1.0 are equally
> > stable so he wants to do a release of what's currently in trunk
> > (which
> > means we need to branch it). the users i'm supporting only use
> > branches/1.0 and have been doing so reliably for many months...the
> > actual 'usability' of trunk i'm less familiar with but mike was
> > hoping
> > to put effort towards releasing that rather than spending
> > time/effort
> > on releasing branches/1.0 since it lacks many of the newer fixes and
> > features.
> >
> > ~sk
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Mihael Hategan <hategan at mcs.anl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > I am of the opinion that if we have a choice of releasing
> > branches/1.0
> > now or releasing trunk at the end of January, we should
> > release
> > branches/1.0 now.
> >
> > Mihael
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:01 -0600, Michael Wilde wrote:
> > > Im loosing track, but I thought trunk will become branch
> > 0.10?
> > >
> > >
> > > I wanted to name it based on what we're trying to say to
> > > the
> > user
> > > community: this next release I feel is still pre-1.0
> > quality. After
> > > more doc cleanup and usability cleanup and web polishing,
> > > I
> > feel we're
> > > ready to try to make a broader announcement and call it
> > 1.0. Im
> > > thinking end of this January for that.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > feel free, justin. i'm currently editing stuff
> > > that
> > i think
> > > should go into doc for the 12/20 release (e.g.
> > describing
> > > features that exist but aren't documented, etc.).
> > >
> > > so, branch 1.0 will become release 0.10...seems a
> > bit
> > > confusing to me...also considering the differences
> > between 0.9
> > > and what we're releasing doesn't calling it 1.0
> > > make
> > sense?
> > > just a thought...
> > >
> > > ~sk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Justin M Wozniak
> > > <wozniak at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds great- I was actually thinking
> > > about
> > setting up
> > > the branch-specific docs later this week,
> > > do
> > you
> > > already have a start on that?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> > >
> > > so, my expectation for the
> > > release,
> > as we've
> > > discussed somewhat on the list
> > > already, is to put out swift 1.0
> > > on
> > 12/20
> > > which, as i see it, involves
> > > primarily editing of the
> > documentation/web
> > > content more so than anything
> > > else since all new code (and
> > documentation
> > > associated with the new code)
> > > going into trunk is expected to be
> > in the 1.1.
> > > release--which hopefully we
> > > can have out in the next few
> > > months.
> > i'm also
> > > assuming we're sticking with
> > > the plan to allow each release to
> > have its own
> > > doc version along with the
> > > code.
> > >
> > > let me know if anyone thinks there
> > are other
> > > things that can/should go into
> > > the 12/20 release.
> > >
> > > ~sk
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM,
> > Michael Wilde
> > > <wilde at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Sarah is going to take the
> > lead in
> > > producing the next Swift
> > release, and
> > > will propose a release
> > definition and
> > > plan. We want to have the
> > release done
> > > by Dec 20.
> > >
> > > - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > Swift-devel mailing list
> > > Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> > >
> > http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Justin M Wozniak
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Wilde
> > > Computation Institute, University of Chicago
> > > Mathematics and Computer Science Division
> > > Argonne National Laboratory
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Swift-devel mailing list
> > > Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> > > http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Michael Wilde
Computation Institute, University of Chicago
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
More information about the Swift-devel
mailing list