[Bf-committers] Blender Release Cycle
ton at blender.org
Thu Aug 18 20:25:04 CEST 2011
That's a long thread already :) It's not easy to get the issues
collected we generally agree on... but as a great old wise Dutch
philosopher once said "strict in what we agree, freedom in our doubts,
love for everyone!".
I personally also don't like to manage much by rules, it's just
guidelines... managing by reponsibilities and empowering people is
more succesful I think. This is where our module owners/teams have to
step in for. They can get some flexibility to define 'feature' or
'fix' or when a branch is required or not.
I'll try to get a new summary/proposal for this topic tomorrow
morning, hope it gets a bit less fuzzy for me in morning time!
Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation ton at blender.org www.blender.org
Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands
On 18 Aug, 2011, at 16:19, Campbell Barton wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Alex Fraser <alex at phatcore.com>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Nathan Vegdahl <cessen at cessen.com>
>>>> What defines a new feature? How big must the impact be
>>>> for it? I mean it's senseless to write a small feature which
>>>> only affects a few lines in some areas to be developed in
>>>> a branch.
>>> When branches are expensive, yeah, that's true. Perhaps that's a
>>> argument for switching to a DVCS: it makes it a lot easier to manage
>>> this kind of a workflow, since anyone can publish their own branch.
>> +1; this would be unworkable without DVCS.
> @Nicholas Bishop, +1 for you're suggestions for how to apply changes
> from a branch in steps.
> @Matt, +1 on you're extended items to my initial list - all features
> in a branch Im not against either but need to use some common sense
> here, some cases this could just be impractical - when to branch, when
> to share branch, which feature is so small its not needed.... etc.
> @Michael Fox, I find the tone in you're last mail odd and totally not
> my impression of the state of blender, I'm interested to know if this
> is only you're POV or if many devs/users are thinking this???
> Reply to 2 points...
> - Blender bug tracker has more bugs because more people are testing
> blender!, many bugs that are fixed are not reported so infact the
> number of bugs in the tracker should be much higher, and 6months back
> should have been 100's more then it was.
> - Regarding "not calling bugs show-stoppers belittling users reports",
> and that _any_ bug could be a showstopper.... eeeh,
> well yes - of course any bug can be a showstopper but the line has to
> drawn somewhere, else we just end up in release paralysis, I think it
> should be enough that we try fix bugs when we find time, holding back
> a release means users who stick to stable builds are not getting the
> fixes we HAVE done, think we just have to try use our best judgment
> @Knapp, don't think comparing blender to kubuntu makes sense in, a
> collection of packages and a single software project are very
> different - Enough distros manage to get this right so expect they
> have internal troubles getting enough maintainers or quality of
> @ *DVCS Issue*, think this is a bigger topic and I'm worry that
> everyone just agrees DVCS is awesome, this thread fizzles out and
> nothing happens.
> DVCS asside we still need to settle on what to do for the release
> cycle, and until we do the actual switch to DVCS - or state that some
> git-svn combination (for eg) is the way-to-go, we still should set
> some policy on merges as Matt and I are suggesting.
> Last I checked moving to DVCS (GIT actually) needs some experienced
> admin with time to devote to managing issues with large binary files
> we have in SVN so I think we first have to find this person to show
> its even something we can pull off.
> - Campbell
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers