Von: Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Montag, 23. April 2018 16:47
Betreff: Re: A proposal...
Am 23.04.2018 um 16:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
It seems that, IMO, if there was not so much concern about
"regressions" in releases, this whole revisit-versioning debate would
not have come up. This implies, to me at least, that the root cause
I've said before) appears to be one related to QA and testing more
anything. Unless we address this, then nothing else really matters.
We have a test framework. The questions are:
1. Are we using it?
2. Are we using it sufficiently well?
3. If not, what can we do to improve that?
4. Can we supplement/replace it w/ other frameworks?
It does seem to me that each time we patch something, there should
a test added or extended which covers that bug. We have gotten lax in
that. Same for features. And the more substantial the change (ie, the
more core code it touches, or the more it refactors something), the
we should envision what tests can be in place which ensure nothing
In other words: nothing backported unless it also involves some
changes to the Perl test framework or some pretty convincing reasons
it's not required.
I agree with the importance of the test framework, but would also
to mention that getting additional test feedback from the community
seems also important. That's why IMHO the RC style of releasing could
helpful by attracting more test effort before a release.
I think RC style releasing could help. Another thought that came to my
I haven't worked out how we could implement this is the following:
Do "double releases". Taking the current state we would do:
Release 2.4.34 and 2.4.35 at the same time. 2.4.34 only contains bug
fixes / security fixes.
2.4.35 additional features / improvements on top of 2.4.34 as we do so
The next "double release" would be 2.4.36 / 2.4.37. 2.4.36 only
contains bug fixes / security fixes
on top of 2.4.35, 2.4.37 additional features / improvements on top of
So 2.4.36 would contain the additional features / improvements we had
in 2.4.35 as well, but they
have been in the "wild" for some time and the issues should have been
identified and fixed as part
Users would then have a choice what to take.