I'd also vote for the 1st point and ultimately list the current regressions in the press release. After all the remaining regressions can be fixed and further regression testing be continued in the next release as usual. Most of the regressions which belong within user mode aren't huge stop-blockers so I see no point in delaying the release much.
Victor Perevertkin <victor.perevertkin(a)reactos.org> wrote on Tue, February 9th, 2021, 4:47 PM:
> Hello!
>
> It seems for me that it's time to bring up the topic about our RC
> version - 0.4.14.
>
> Our current "stable", 0.4.13 was branched on 30 September, 2019
> (remember those peacefull pre-COVID times :D)
> That's quite some time, but not the main issue I'd like to discuss.
>
> 0.4.14 was branched on 24 April, 2020. That's almost a year already.
> And we're in a difficult situation here - there are regressions, but
> nobody fixed them within this long time.
> According to https://reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.14, there are 29
> unfixed regressions found for this release. I'd like to point out: most
> of them are among usermode and non-kernel/driver functionality, and as
> our development is mostly focused in the kernel right now, it's
> unexpected for them to be fixed unless a volunteer comes up.
>
> A quick reminder. Our "releases" mechanism is useful for finding
> regressions in the first place, there is no that much benefit for users
> here, because we're still a "deep" alpha. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Joakim made a great job finding all regressions, and this work won't be
> lost in any case.
>
> We can't wait forever and I think it's time to resolve this situation
> somehow. I see two options:
> 1. Release 0.4.14 as-is. There were a lot more buggy releases, nobody
> dies from this.
> 2. Skip 0.4.14. This already happened once in the history of the
> project - 0.3.2 was skipped. I wasn't around at the time, but I may
> guess that reasons were similar to what we have today.
> (3.) Fix the bugs quickly. I don't expect this to happen, but who
> knows, maybe a volunteer appears :)
>
> Let's vote. This seem to be the only way for us to decide on things.
> Votes from the team members will be collected until 1 March.
>
> ===
>
> I personally vote for skipping the release. The work on finding
> regressions is already done, so the most important part of a release
> cycle for us is there (thanks Joakim!)
> If we do a release now, all the stuff we were writing in news reports
> for the last 6 month would be missing from it. That would cause (as I
> think) a lot of confusion to people. Moreover 0.4.14 is not that
> featureful release itself (compared to 0.4.13, which brought the new
> USB stack)
> So I suggest to move on and start checking 0.4.15 for regressions. I
> expect quite some of them to appear and we need time for fixing.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Victor
During the last days of February of this year some team members have participated in a vote concerning the delay of 0.4.14 release due to the amount of regressions making it not eligible to be released as per the release engineering guidelines. As 1st of March has already passed, this is the current situation with the votes as they stand out for the moment in the following order.
1. Release 0.4.14 as-is (with its known regressions as of now)
=================================================
* Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
* Stanislav Motylkov
* Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO
* Alexander Rechitskiy
* George Bişoc
2. Skip 0.4.14
=================================================
* Victor Perevertkin
* Joshua Rice (non team member)
3. Fix the bugs as soon as possible
=================================================
None
Oleg Dubinskiy's vote is not counted because his mail is apparently empty (???). Considering the collected votes, should we extend the period of voting for a few days so that the other team members can have an opinion too regard the matter or shall we conclude the voting as is and proceed further with releasing 0.4.14?
Regards,
George
