First Draft Development Process Proposal

[Greg Smith]

Hi All,

Thanks for all the comments on the Development Process.
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_Process_Home

A few gentle suggestions on managing the input.

A - My intention is that this page
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_Process_Home) will be the final page.
So please put comments and discussion in the talk section. Feel free to
make signed edits to the page if there is consensus. Any typo fixing or
additional links and references are also welcome (e.g. does someone have 
a link and explanation of the OLPC-3 build which they can add to the 
builds section?). I want to manage comments on the Talk page and on this 
list if possible.

B - The best way to change a section is to offer alternative text and
get consensus for it. Write exactly what you think the text should say,
post it here and/or on the talk page. Once there are enough +1s we can
call it final. A couple of people at 1CC need to sign off eventually but
if "the community" agrees that's pretty certain to be the final word.

C - The very best way have your input adopted is to write a section. No
takers on the open items yet and there are some major areas ...

I should have explained my plan for collecting comment before, sorry. I
have no complaints about any of the input so far, keep it coming.

Here are my responses to a few of the issues raised:
1 - Translations input
GS - I agree we need a better definition of that. I added it to the to
do list.

2 - Synching with Fedora schedule
GS - No opinion right now. Is there consensus? How long do we need after
a fedora release comes out before our release is ready?

3 - "Core OS" vs "Core + Activities"
GS - My intention was that this doc is for Core OS. I added a to do list
item for activities and removed on offending comment. We need a
definition of what constitutes the "Core OS". I prefer a URL with all
relevant SW modules, but whatever developers need is OK. Do we have
consensus that this doc is for Core OS only?

GS - That said, I think we should keep with current naming convention on
Releases used in the field which include activities. The fewer times you
change the naming convention the better. Also, I think we should
document the naming convention down to the OS + Activities level even if
we don't have a process for including activities yet.

4 - Support time frame.
GS - I agree that release should be supported until the second
subsequent release is out (ala Fedora). Do we have consensus on that?

5 - Code names and community roadmap.
GS - I agree with the code name idea and the community roadmap idea.
Just type of the text you want on the page including where you want it
to go. Post it to the talk section and/or send it to this list, get
consensus and its in as far as I'm concerned.

6 - Types of builds, meaning of "freezes", definition of what requires a
minor release.
GS - I agree that those could all be improved. Just type of the text you
want on the page including where you want it to go. Post it to the talk
section and/or send it to this list, get consensus.

Thanks for the review and suggestions.

I didn't see anyone commenting on whether this is useful or not.

Are there any open source developers reading this who are on the fence
about working with OLPC? Does this help explain how we work and does it
help motivate you to chip in?

Is it useful for the rest of you already working on the project?

FYI I have a pre-planned vacation I need to take starting tomorrow. I
will be back online Thursday July 10. I will collect all comments and
edits then and make another major revision.

Thanks,

Greg S