[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Release Train Participation
- From: Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:58:46 -0500
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for the additional info. I'd like to learn more and see if there are ways we can mitigate and lower the barriers. Embedded below are a few questions below to help identify the key points.
> Unfortunately, in my view it's quite a lot. The must dos for Indigo continue to increase...and most of the existing (as opposed to new) ones also have a significant yearly incremental cost. There is also the plan creation, the review materials creation, the reviews themselves, and the inevitable time cost of the IP process (witness the yearly last minute fire drills around license consistency, etc), and the incremental releng costs (which never seem to actually go to 0...although all of us would like it if they did).
The overall context here is that ECF is doing releases anyway. If being on the train is adding significant work that the team would not naturally fulfill then those perhaps we can reduce or eliminate them. To help with that,
Can you say more about the must do costs?
Which ones are the most taxing?
Which are the ones you feel do not apply?
Are you seeing IP costs over and above those of doing a regular release?
>> They are likely good things for your consumers too.
> Perhaps for some consumers...but at the necessary cost of other consumers. For example, every bit of time that Markus, Wim, or I spend upon releng or IP for the simultaneous release (for example), is time *not* addressing other consumer's desires for new discovery features and/or providers.
yeah, this one is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. As you say, without interesting function, consumers don't consume. OTOH, increased barriers (real or perceived) to discovery and consumption reduce the consumer pool making additional function irrelevant. There is a balance in there somewhere.
>> There are sure to be some that are less relevant to RT-ish projects. We should seek to change this or get exemptions where it makes sense. From what I can see though the real work of being on the train is doing a release. So is the question "should ECF do releases" or "should ECF be on the train"?
> No, I don't think this is right. After doing at least 7 releases of ECF and 5 simultaneous releases, I can confidently say there *is* a significant incremental cost of being on the train...over doing a regular ECF release (which is always a fair amount of work). And thanks to the additional must dos, this incremental cost consistently increases.
Got it. I think everyone would be in favour of reducing the burdens. First step is to identify the ones that are excess. Perhaps the ECF team can share their views on this with the aim to eliminate or qualify the requirements.