Improving our procedure

[victor martinez]

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/

[Gregor Schneider]

Some thoughts on this from my side:

Creating the changelog is boring and time consuming. We should enforce some
kind of commit message regulation that allows to automate changelog creation
as discussed earlier. Opening changlogs early sounds good, but we should be
sure which kind of release we're aiming for (0.3.12 or 0.4?). Or just name
it "next changelog" and rename it later.
Why do we have two release engineers if only Colin does Releases?

Certain changelog entries are still missing entries as it seems (hi Jim!).
I'll have look this evening concerning your entries Victor.

Why would anyone object using a script for creating a changelogs and on the
other hand not create his entries manually? I don't see any reasons against
using a script (except for missing commit message guidelines - but that can
change).

Gregor

2009/12/15 victor martinez <vicmarcal(a)hotmail.com>

>   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.
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>  Hasta las ovejas de Sietes son expertas en Windows 7.
> ¡Conócelas!<http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Daniel Reimer]

Fist of all. Thx for adding most missing changes to the log. I think the 
ppl really appreciate that.

Then to your comments. Yes, I confirm that we have some problems with 
realeases, thats why I more than once asked for just putting out a sorta 
useable ISO as release in the past. OK, I now know its a stupid idea in 
our improving state. We could have done it my way two years ago. So I 
fully agree with your ideas to get rid of bottlenecks and elect 
something like a Vice Release Engineer. We cant put all that work on 
Colin forever, especially when RL is bitchy again. As next we need a 
better way to get the changelog done. We already have a script to do it 
semi automatic, but it only works if ppl follow comit message rules and 
most dont. So we could of course use it again and let ppl who dislike 
the rule make their stuff by hand or we have to find something better / 
less work intensive. Like just fireing the commi messages unsorted and 
in row into the changelog. Many Projects do it this way. Not nice, but 
as Plan B quite useful IMO.

victor martinez schrieb:
>   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.
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Hasta las ovejas de Sietes son expertas en Windows 7. ¡Conócelas! 
>  <http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged Murphy]

>  From a publicity perspective the changelog and release
> notes are very 
important for the project.

It’s very unfair that Victor spent the first half of his day filling out the
changelog because other people didn’t do it. It’s also very considerate of
him to do so and he deserves a big thank you for doing that!

 

Considering our last release was July (Yes, f**king July), when I first read
through the changelog to compile the release notes one of the sentences I
found myself writing was “This version is anticipated as a compatibility and
stability release rather than the usual large architectural changes the
releases bring”. 

After thinking something was wrong considering  5 months of work, I looked
back through the SVN log and realised we only had about 10% of the changes
filled out.....

 

Filling out the changelog is part of being a reactos developer and if
generating this at release time isn’t convenient then steps to fix this need
to be taken.

 

Personally, I’ve never been a fan of using a commit log script. In my
opinion such a thing will be too unreliable, produce unmeaningful ‘commit
log messages’ instead of meaningful ‘change log messages’ and it takes the
fun out of writing comical/banter oriented commit messages.

 

Back in the day .... we didn’t used to have any problems in writing commit
logs. Devs were proud to get their changes into the log and did so in a
timely fashion with easily decipherable output.

What’s changed? Why has it become so difficult to do this in the recent
years?? 

 

The lack of a complete changelog has held the release back for around a week
now.

It’s a shame that it came to this, but I propose that we continue to hold up
releases until commit logs are complete. They really are that important both
for having a ‘wow factor’ log to show to the public and to have some
substance with which to write appealing release notes. The release notes
especially are read by a huge number of people and is our chance to sell
ourselves.

 

Ged.

 

P.S. We are still missing changelog entries........

 

 

 

From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of victor martinez
Sent: 15 December 2009 13:39
To: ros-dev(a)reactos.org
Subject: [ros-dev] Improving our procedure

 

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.






  _____  

Hasta las ovejas de Sietes son expertas en Windows 7. ¡Conócelas!
<http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/>

[James Tabor]

Hi!
Timo pointed out the use of TSVN to look at the "svn log" output. Wow,
I did my change log in a snap! So TSVN is GPL right? I like the way it
produced the logs, just set the dates then the name and you are off!
Copy paste there you go~! Even had a column for the bug number too! So
is there a way to set the SVN revision numbers between point 1 to
point 2 and generate a report to be built into the change log format?
I'm sure our webies can figure out something to help us out with this
important requirement! 8^D

Thanks,
James

[Ged Murphy]

Yeah, this is how I've always done it in the past.
If you filter the results for author and date and select the items in the
list view, you can do a copy/paste into a text file and all the data for
each revision is pasted.
Easy peasy :)



-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of James Tabor
Sent: 16 December 2009 10:07
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Improving our procedure

Hi!
Timo pointed out the use of TSVN to look at the "svn log" output. Wow,
I did my change log in a snap! So TSVN is GPL right? I like the way it
produced the logs, just set the dates then the name and you are off!
Copy paste there you go~! Even had a column for the bug number too! So
is there a way to set the SVN revision numbers between point 1 to
point 2 and generate a report to be built into the change log format?
I'm sure our webies can figure out something to help us out with this
important requirement! 8^D

Thanks,
James

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev