Tuesday Release Meeting - Notes

[Sameer Verma]

Greg Smith wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Great notes! Short and informative. I don't you or Gobby gets the 
> credit, but thanks regardless.
>
> Two suggestions for next week's meeting.
>
> 1 - Let's take agenda items in advance and set the agenda in advance. We 
> can do a brief agenda review but I hope we can spend most of the meeting 
> on substantive work and not setting the agenda.
>
> 2 - Let's roll over AI status as the first item each week. Once they are 
> done, you can put a brief note in the minutes saying done and adding a 
> link as needed. If they are still open they go on the open AI list until 
> t hey are closed one way or another.
>
> I have one big one for next weeks agenda:
> Backward compatibility of activities.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg S
>
> ******************
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:35:49 -0400
> From: Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: Reminder: Tuesday Release & Wednesday Software Meetings
> 	-- 2:00	PM EDT, #olpc-meeting on irc.freenode.org
> To: Michael Stone <michael at laptop.org>
> Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org
> Message-ID: <86tzf0419m.fsf at pullcord.laptop.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi,
>
>     > We'd like to try out using Gobby to record the agenda and minutes
>     > for Tuesday's release meeting.  If you have an XO and will be
>     > joining the meeting, please run "yum install gobby" beforehand, or
>     > "apt-get install gobby" on an Ubuntu laptop.  The server will be at
>     > pullcord.laptop.org.
>
> And here are our minutes and action items:
>
> Attendance:
>
>     cjb cscott erikg dsd pgf dsaxena tomeu ypod dgilmore bemasc bert
>     Charlie (Celkan) Kim mstone Gregorio unmadindu walter martin_xsa
>     eben
>
>
> Minutes:
>
> * Ypod mentioned that it's hard to get the hang of Koji.  We agreed,
>    and offered to sit down with him to explain.  Cjb asserted that a
>    package being outside of Koji should not impede that package making
>    it into a build for testing via the dropbox system.
>
>    AI: cjb and mstone to meet with ypod.
>
>
> * Trac process: In response to ticket workflow questions (specifically:
>    when should tickets get closed), Michael suggested the following
>    process through Trac "next action" states:
>
>      code -> package -> add to build -> developer test in build
>
>    After testing, the developer tags the bug with the results, e.g.:
>      joyride-2126:-    or   joyride-2126:+
>
>    if +, the developer moves the ticket's "next action" to "finalize"
>    QA will then close the ticket at some later stage, perhaps after
>    making relevant additions to the release notes.
>
>    AI: Joe will call a Trac meeting to discuss this later this week.
>
>
> * The changelog tools we have aren't very good.  We should improve them.
>
>    AI: Chris, Michael and Dennis to meet to work on changelog tools.
>
>
> * Which build should be used for testing?  Joyride-2128 -- earlier
>    builds lost olpc-netlog, which is required for testing.
>
>
> * Metrics for "release readiness".  cscott sent mail to devel recapping
>    the "state of the update.1" email
>
>    AI: Chris to help with finding a metric we can use to define
>        release-readiness, such as (but better than) number of
>        blocker bugs open.
>
>   
Hi,

If the "release readiness" metric is a composite of multiple attributes 
such as blocker bugs, documentation, integration, etc. then a weighted 
scoring approach will be more comprehensive. This approach is used by 
Open Source Maturity Model (http://www.navicasoft.com/pages/osmm.htm) 
and Business Readiness Rating (http://www.openbrr.org).

Of course, either of these models may not be suitable "as-is" for our 
purposes. In that case, we can define our own attributes (or modify 
existing ones) and build our own model. The hardest part in using such 
scoring models is in determining the weights for each attribute. Weight 
implies importance and contribution to the composite metric. In case of 
attributes such as blocker bugs, we have a number to plug in. In case of 
others such as documentation, the assessment may be a bit more difficult.

We have used OSMM at SF State University in our "Managing Open Source" 
class (http://opensource.sfsu.edu/node/40) quite successfully. Its 
fairly comprehensive and at the same time not too detail oriented.

cheers,

Sameer

-- 
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/


> * Better user feedback from the field?  David Cavallo wants to talk
>    to us about what the learning team is up to later this week.
>
>
> * Greg brought up there not being a release contract for touchpad
>    improvements.  The touchpad driver change is now present in latest
>    joyrides; needs testing.
>
>
> * Status of 8.2.0.
>
>    AI: Michael to send out 8.2.0 status e-mail by Friday.  Should
>        identify a "test candidate" and maybe a short explanation of
>        what to expect from it.
>
>    AI: Joe to test joyride-2128, report back.
>
>
> * How will we write release notes for 8.2?  Mstone, Greg, Kim and Jim
>    will do so together here:
>    http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_8.2.0_Software_Release_Notes
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chris.
> -- Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>