Last year we set a bi-monthly release planning. Last spring, we released once or twice within 6 weeks. This summer it took me - due to holidays - more time to get our trunk into a releasable state. Or so it must have looked from the outside.
What I should have communicated is that I'd like to set our bi-monthly release planning to release around the first weekend of the odd-numbered months. Why? Well, it allows the release schedule to continue without suffering from most of the holidays: summer holidays (at least mine) are mostly during august; Christmas isn't around a first weekend and October holidays are rarely close to the first weekend of November.
This means that February holidays may interfere with our release planning, but if I look at school holidays, these are mostly in the middle or the end of February.
This plan would also mean that a release should be cut around next weekend.
Then there's the issue of me being the only one with the right access to SourceForge to upload ABCL release files. We can do two things about that: 1. Give others upload access to SourceForge 2. Host our downloads on c-l.net
The second option would make any committer a release manager, if we decided to do that [because we would commit the releases to our repository, which automatically updates our site]. The reason our downloads are currently hosted on SF is that they provide nice download stats. If we decide we don't need those or that we can create those stats ourselves on c-l.net, there's no reason to continue with SF.
What are your comments?
Bye,
Erik.
On 8/31/09 9:32 AM, Erik Huelsmann wrote: […]
Your reasoning of releasing every two months on odd months is impeccable, with weekends being the further icing on the cake.
The second option would make any committer a release manager, if we decided to do that [because we would commit the releases to our repository, which automatically updates our site]. The reason our downloads are currently hosted on SF is that they provide nice download stats. If we decide we don't need those or that we can create those stats ourselves on c-l.net, there's no reason to continue with SF.
I'd go for releasing from common-lisp.net, even though stats are nice, so we can keep to the bi-monthly release schedule no matter what is going on in people's lives. If ABCL ever gets popular, we will have multiple distribution sites anyways. Already the FreeBSD port mirrors our 0.0.10 release in the distfiles. And I stash a version of the release on GoogleCode under the 'abcl-dynamic-install' project. So the idea we know an exact number of downloads is always a bit of a fiction anyways.
But it would be a shame to lose reporting on the main distribution site. What sort of provisions are there to get logs from common-list.net?
And what about the GPG signatures for the source distributions? I see such files on sf.net now, but I can't seem to decode them. Is this something that SourceForge adds automatically?
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Mark Evensonevenson@panix.com wrote:
On 8/31/09 9:32 AM, Erik Huelsmann wrote: […]
Your reasoning of releasing every two months on odd months is impeccable, with weekends being the further icing on the cake.
The second option would make any committer a release manager, if we decided to do that [because we would commit the releases to our repository, which automatically updates our site]. The reason our downloads are currently hosted on SF is that they provide nice download stats. If we decide we don't need those or that we can create those stats ourselves on c-l.net, there's no reason to continue with SF.
I'd go for releasing from common-lisp.net, even though stats are nice, so we can keep to the bi-monthly release schedule no matter what is going on in people's lives. If ABCL ever gets popular, we will have multiple distribution sites anyways. Already the FreeBSD port mirrors our 0.0.10 release in the distfiles. And I stash a version of the release on GoogleCode under the 'abcl-dynamic-install' project. So the idea we know an exact number of downloads is always a bit of a fiction anyways.
But it would be a shame to lose reporting on the main distribution site. What sort of provisions are there to get logs from common-list.net?
I just had a look and all the logs - starting 2007 - are still there. They are root:adm, which means that I can't look at them, but if we were to write routines to parse them and create stats for each project, I suppose we could get a job like that scheduled. Ofcourse, it's always good to discuss things with the admins before we invest in a thing like that.
And what about the GPG signatures for the source distributions? I see such files on sf.net now, but I can't seem to decode them. Is this something that SourceForge adds automatically?
No :-)
I create those files when I create a release. The command to use is (assuming you have a GPG key):
gpg -b -a <file-name>
the output is <file-name>.asc which is the (detached) signature of <file-name>. See more on http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x135.html
HTH,
Erik.
armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Erik Huelsmann -
Mark Evenson