Problems revealed by a report of detailed changes to 8.2.1 tickets.

[Michael Stone]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:57:56PM -0500, Ed McNierney wrote:
> Michael -
>
> Are we able to promptly and regularly generate 8.2.1 builds that reflect 
> the work being done? 

For basic testing purposes, yes. Scott's weekend report indicated that
he set up a 'staging' build stream on xs-dev. You can see its output at:

   http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/xo-1/streams/staging/

Input is provided hourly via the d.l.o package "dropbox" or via the
local.8.2.1 and koji.dist-olpc3-testing branches of mock.l.o/repos.

   (P.S. - Scott -- you need to push the pilgrim configuration off of
   xs-dev up to pilgrim's main repo.)

True 8.2.1 builds, being under full change control, require trained
manual intervention to create, e.g. by cscott, dsd, or me. 
  
> From last week's reports I get the impression that various bits of
> progress are being made, but we've had no 8.2.1 builds since the first
> one.

What stimulus is supposed to prompt the creation of such a build?
Since some people have refused to follow the workflow I helped write
for 8.2.0 and since you have not reported on the outcome of your
scheduled conversations with those people, it is not at all obvious
how to proceed.

> Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. 

In my opinion, more active shepherding of changes and people by the
release manager is clearly called for. For example have you:

   a) clearly broadcast what ticket workflow you are using? 
   b) set any deadlines for the completion of any pending work?
   c) publicly poked people for status updates, or
   d) successfully synchronized people on the status and needs of 8.2.1
      by either email or IRC meetings?

Is there some reason why you feel that none of these forcing functions
is necessary to the release effort or some other commitment that
prevents you from carrying them out?

> If there is anything you (or anyone else) can do to ensure that bug  
> fixes can quickly get into a build for testing, that would be very  
> helpful and an excellent assignment. 

I spent a long time thinking about this remark and about my reaction to
it. On the basis of that reflection, I need to apologize in advance that
my patience has has worn so thin... my reply may be harsher than it
needs to be. It consists of two responses, one outward-facing "public"
response and one inward-facing "critical" response.

Outward response: 
"Sure, happy to help. I'll go poke the necessary people."

Inward response: 
"This remark is unacceptably vague. In order to be the
release manager, you're supposed to know or to be able to figure out
what needs to be done in order to make the release happen. Moreover,
while I'm happy to help with many tasks, I don't really enjoy feeling
like I'm prompting you.  

Example: if 8.2.1 builds concern you, why did you not make more noise
about them last week? (e.g. by sending mail to devel@ or filing a ticket
asking about them.)

Does your process for getting the release unstuck actually consist of
waiting for me to send you questions, then asking me or Scott to fill in
the details of the segment of the critical path that lies immediately
ahead?"

> Thanks.

You're welcome.

Michael