Hi,
just for your information, I have already written a script and it's already
available in trunk (/trunk/tools/changelog/autocl.py), but Aleksey decided to
make the ChangeLog manually. Of course the script can't do any magic, but it
was intended to setup up a ChangeLog-base for manual adjustments with the
great advantage that nothing will be forgotten. Maybe we can improve the
script to fit it to our needs and make it as much flexible as possible, but
nevertheless, we have to give it a chance to judge...
Matthias
--
Matthias Kupfer phone +49 (0) 371 236 46 52
Wilhelm-Firl-Straße 21 mobile +49 (0) 160 859 43 54
09122 Chemnitz, Germany
Hi,
This is incredible. I can understand a delay in a release because fixing Blockers, i can understand a delay because we are afraid of "2012" movie.But i can not understand why the Changelog is not made!!. On 3rd of November Aleksey sent an email saying a Blocker was present to release 0.3.11, this means that on 3rd of November a full Changelog should have been done and just 2 lines (explaining the Fix,if needed) should have been added afterwards. But the fact is that the Blocker has been solved more than one week ago, that we are still waiting for changelog to be done(after more than a month) and that the binaries are stored in SF waiting indefinitely to link them.
So this strikes again, what is happening with Changelogs?What happens if noone wants to write his Changelog?Are we going to stay here waiting it indefinitely?Is our actual procedure correct?Or is it not practical?How can we shorten the time for a release?What happens if one of the Steps before releasing (like Changelog Step) is not properlly done?Do we have a PlanB?
Let´s review our Teorical steps before a release and finding Bottlenecks as i do in my work:
1) Coding Time.During this time Devs creates ReactOS code.Since 0.3.9 also the GoldenApps and CandidateApps are being tested during this time in regular basis to reduce the possible Blockers.
2) Choosing Minute. An ISO is chosen as Candidate. Doubts: When the Candidate is chosen?Following which criterias?Why sometimes we take an ISO after one month and other times after 2 months?
3) Colin creates a Pre-release ISO.
4) Colin creates the 0.3.XX wikipage.Tests begins and Changelog begins to be written.
5) Performing Testing on Candidate. It usually takes less than a week, and thanks to previous testings in Coding Time, there are less Blockers each time.
6A) Blocker found. If a Blocker is found, a regression testing begins(if needed) and a patch/hack is made.GoTo 7
6B) Blocker not found. prerelease ISO is released as definitive.END.
7)Patch is added to release branch, Colin creates a second RC and testers perform a full test focusing in the regression. Release.END.
Let´s begin studying the 0.3.11 case.
Step 1 was done correctly.We have devs still working on ROS.great!
Step 2 was a CHAOS. I have been asked to select first an ISO before asking Colin to make a prerelease ISO of it. Testing that first ISO we found the Vmware regression but it took a little(more than a month to fix it) so we select a different ISO and we performed a full testing (again) before asking Colin to create a prerelease.
Changing the ISO is not inside the Teorical steps,but since the patch for Vmware wasnt made and we had time it didnt suppose really a lose of time.
Step 3.First bottleneck. It took a little to contact with Colin,because he was busy with RL, so we had to wait him to create a Branch,include the reverts and create the prerelease.If I recall correctly it took more than a Week. Without the prerelease done is impossible to test anything.We should have an alternative to Colin in case Colin is busy with RL.We dont have a PlanB for this situation.
Step4. Colin creates the Wikipage.
Step5.Test begins but Changelog didnt begin to be written, it has been asked twice via ML, and zillions via IRC. Currently we are waiting for having it complete.
And now second bottleneck:
In 0.3.11 case,Blockers were solved BEFORE prerelease was made, so when Colin uploaded the prerelease iso it doesnt have any Blocker and it is ready to be released.And then the bottleneck comes:Changelog. Changelog can be created without hurry if we are in step 6A(a Blocker found) but in case 6B (as 0.3.11 prerelease is) you dont have real time to create it. When a Blocker is found,Changelog can be created during the extra time of regtesting+finding a patch+adding to branch+creating a new iso+performing again all the Tests, (this extra time is usually 4 weeks). But when non Blocker is found in Step6, Changelog stops our release.You cant made a proper Changelog of 2 months changes in a week. So our procedure currently is not optimal at all.
First bottleneck: Relying in just one guy to merge stuff in the branch+create the ISO should be solved.
Second bottleneck: If we expect that our prereleases doesnt have any blocker,then Changelog will be stopping our releases. To avoid this i propose a new procedure for 0.3.12, which is more multitasking.
STEP1: Create 0.3.12 Changelog page.Open to include the changes since the Beginning.
STEP2: Coding time. Meanwhile,testers tests goldenapps and candidateapps.
STEP2: Choosing minute.The candidate ISO is selected, Devs are warned in Changelog page which is the latest revision to include the changes and that just they have one week to finish their Changelogs.
STEP3: Release Engineers(not just Colin) creates the branch and the prerelease iso.
STEP4: Release Engineers creates a Test 0.3.12 wikipage.
STEP5: Tests are performed. This gives one week of extra time to have the Changelog done(more if a blocker is found).
If Changelog is critical for releasing, then we need a PlanB if a Dev rejects or cant make a changelog.This is called SCRIPT. I´m really bored of those guys who doesnt want the Script but doesnt write their changes in Changelog neither.
we should have a Script that by request or by lazyness of the devs can make a Changelog giving a revision range,a component or|and an author.This will make the life easier and healthier.Btw, some Devs doesnt want to waste the time writting Changelogs and prefer coding, so this tool is a must.I dont want to see devs sending less code to avoid writting a changelog.
Sorry about this long post.My fingers were trained in our Wiki this morning, btw, i hope someone can review my recent changes on the Changelog 0.3.11 to be sure i put the commits in their correct place.Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________
Date una vuelta por Sietes y conoce el pueblo de los expertos en Windows 7
http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, <dreimer(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
> Author: dreimer
> Date: Tue Dec 15 17:07:47 2009
> New Revision: 44603
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=44603&view=rev
> Log:
> Using the right Cross Compiler is useful, of course. Now We just need a native one, because the cygwin one has evil *nix, blasphemical, god negating and devil worshipping search paths.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
You victory Alex....you know...
--
Técnico en la FPGISB UCP 'Pepito Tey'
'Creo en el software libre'
Ubuntu "Linux for human beings"
Lo último que se sabe cuando se realiza un trabajo es por donde empezar.
(Blaise Pascal, matemático francés)
Hi,
Let us take in an example from the PROCESS/THREADINFO merge or
morphing. It was all done in small steps and it also needed more
structure support to make the move possible. The same is going on with
the move to Wnd. Naming the entries in WINDOW_OBJECT the same as Wnd
makes it just as easy so when the WINDOW_OBJECT is removed the minimum
changes are made. This too includes new code to replace missing
entries in Wnd that had been added to WINDOW_OBJECT. This is the new
support that is need. Another example is LastChild from WINDOW_OBJECT,
support to replace it will need to be added.
This is the safest way to merge and morph to the new structure without
killing ReactOS in the process.
Thanks,
James
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
>
> I don't see any use in renaming the WINDOW_OBJECT structures.
> spwndXxx means shared pointer to a WND, this does not reflect it's
> current usage in WINDOW_OBJECT.
> We already have a WND and it has spwndXxx members and they are in use.
> You should rather try to get rid of them completely inside WINDOW_OBJECT
> and only use the ones from WND instead.
> But that's probably the last move after all the rest is gone.
>
> Anyway, as long as we end up with the WND structure only, do as you like
> on the way to there.
>
> Regards,
> Timo
>
