|Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Release Train Participation
On 12/16/2010 6:58 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
<stuff deleted> 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?
Well, to put it simply: significant committer time (mine and others). Since I don't have a written record of my time...or releng and materials creation time by other committers I can't give you a number in hours.
Which ones are the most taxing?
Must dos, release train communication/coordination overhead, plan and review materials creation, IP/licensing/legal stuff, releng for release train builder....all are taxing in my view.
Of course all participating projects have to deal with these things...the ones that have extra resources for project leads, releng, documentation, etc. don't/won't find it as taxing...for obvious reasons. So of course how taxing it is depends upon the project.
Which are the ones you feel do not apply?
I don't understand what you mean.
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.
Yes...and at the moment I don't think the release train is the right balance for a non-platform/non-Eclipse project. The 'unfunded mandates' place an undo burden on the smaller projects (and their consumers) that get the least benefit from the release train...in order for the rules to be the same for a widely varying set of projects.
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.
If everyone is in favor, then perhaps they can/should actually be reduced instead of increased.
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.
I believe I've shared mine...I would encourage other project leads and committers (both ECF's and other project's committers) to make their views known publicly (as opposed to privately...e.g. via council).
Back to the top