[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Timetable for Evergreen 2.6 [RM2.6]

[Grace Dunbar]

Equinox has a few fairly significant pieces of development that we will try
to get out the door as quickly as possible to accommodate the time frame
for 2.6.  I agree that we need to get back on track with the release
schedule.

The MVF/CRA work and the TPAC metarecord work should be complete in time to
make the 2.6 beta cut off.
http://blog.esilibrary.com/2013/12/23/happy-holiday-development/
However, we also have a contract with Natural Resources Canada to work on
WCAG OPAC compliance.  I'm not sure when we'll be finished with that
project but I'm sure that at least some of the work will make it in before
the deadline.

Thanks for taking the release manager role again, Dan!

Grace



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.hamby at yclibrary.net>wrote:

> I think the abbreviated time table is appropriate.  I know 2.5 got delayed
> for a lot of good reasons (and that I agreed with) but I don't want to see
> the ongoing schedule shifted due to it.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dan Wells <dbw2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> First, thank you to everyone for the show of support in keeping me on for
>> 2.6.  A few people did express concern that I might be over-burdened as I
>> continue as the maintainer for 2.5.  I think that concern is valid, but I
>> think we can also take a wait-and-see approach to the issue.  My brief
>> experience with maintaining 2.5 leads me to believe that packaging a
>> release is more about achieving the necessary focus than about the actual
>> time involved, so it's my hope that handling two releases will give me some
>> economies of scale, so to speak.  We shall see, and I won't hesitate to ask
>> for help if needed.
>>
>> Second, I want to solicit feedback on a preliminary timeline for 2.6.  As
>> stated before, I think we will be best served to have an abbreviated
>> release which gets us back on our March/September timeline.  With that in
>> mind, here is what I am thinking:
>>
>> alpha (bugs targetted) - Jan. 16
>> alpha cut - Jan. 21
>> beta (bugs targetted) - Feb. 4
>> beta cut - Feb. 11
>> RC (bugs targetted) - Mar. 4
>> RC - Mar. 6
>>
>> Of these dates, the most meaningful is of course the beta cutoff, which
>> would effectively be Feb. 4.  I am also scheduling the longest
>> review/commit period for the beta release, since I expect there to be the
>> usual bulge of pullrequests.
>>
>> So, do we collectively think this is doable?  If not, what adjustments
>> should we consider?
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts,
>> Dan
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA
> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services,
> York County Library System
>
> "You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit
> me."
> -- C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
>



-- 
Grace Dunbar, Vice President
Equinox Software, Inc.  -  The Open Source Experts
gdunbar at esilibrary.com
1-877-OPEN-ILS    www.esilibrary.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20131230/6b974125/attachment.htm>