<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
This is a great discussion, thanks Mike for writing down TBB release
process.<br>
<br>
I think is very important to start being more strategical on how we
plan the different projects releases. Of course this doesn't mean we
have to force a big change right away, that is why the discussion is
important so we can figure out a good plan on how to do it.<br>
<br>
Let's see our options first:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>
<pre wrap="">match Core Tor release 0.2.7 with TB 5.0-x release</pre>
</li>
<ul>
<li>
<pre wrap="">pros: PT and control port compatibilities</pre>
</li>
<li>
<pre wrap="">cons: probably will have to cut in half the number of features for 0.2.7 release (should analyze how that can affect sponsor deliverables we are committed to)
</pre>
</li>
</ul>
<li>
<pre wrap="">target 0.2.6 for TB 5.0-x stable, and aim for 0.2.7 to go out in the next TB series</pre>
</li>
<ul>
<li>
<pre>pros?</pre>
</li>
<li>
<pre>cons?</pre>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br>
Did I missed anything?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/13/2015 07:00 AM, Nick Mathewson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKDKvuy=wKKz1FSNHXKayV_Rg8E7WtwF5w_b8LK4oacimhCK0Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Mike Perry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mikeperry@torproject.org"><mikeperry@torproject.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As fair warning, I am very likely to decide that it will be better to
ship 0.2.7.x in TBB 5.0-stable on Aug 11th, as I suspect that the risk
from things like PT compatibility and control port compatibility issues
will actually make a rollback to 0.2.6 more risky on balance than
sticking with 0.2.7.x.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Hm. In that case, maybe we should consider aiming to have 0.2.7.x
become stable around the end of July instead?
That would require us to feature-freeze in mid-May, at the very
latest. I'm not sure that gives us enough time to put out a solid
release; we've never tried so tight a schedule before.
This time around, our schedule looked like this:
* Jun 18 -- Fork 0.2.5 as a place to put stuff that didn't fit in 0.2.4.
* Sep 11 -- First rc for 0.2.5.
* Oct 24 -- Stable release for 0.2.5
* Feb 2 -- Soft feature freeze for 0.2.6
* Feb 19 -- Hard feature freeze for 0.2.6
* Mar 9 -- First release candidate for 0.2.6
* Mar 20 (projected!) -- Stable release or second release
candidate for 0.2.6
So if we aimed for a mid-May freeze, we would have to plan for a much
smaller 0.2.7 than we had for future releases. (As it is, freezing
0.2.7 in August would still put it on a shorter timeline than we had
for 0.2.6.)
It's not out of the question, and we should make sure we talk about it
when we're doing bug triage for 0.2.7 with Isabela next week. But
another possiblility that maybe we should consider is to target 0.2.6
for your 5.0-x stable, and aim for 0.2.7 to go out in the next TB
series?
best wishes,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>