20,741
edits
Release plan: Difference between revisions
→2.10
(→2.10) |
(→2.10) |
||
| Line 284: | Line 284: | ||
** Language files should be synced between English and other languages, so translators can work on them before the release ;-) | ** Language files should be synced between English and other languages, so translators can work on them before the release ;-) | ||
** the [https://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/blobs/next/scripts/python/nasal_api_doc.py nasal_api_doc.py] script in $FG_SRC/scripts/python should be run as part of the release process, to create an updated doc file for [[$FG_ROOT]]/Docs and ship it with each release [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=15133] | ** the [https://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/blobs/next/scripts/python/nasal_api_doc.py nasal_api_doc.py] script in $FG_SRC/scripts/python should be run as part of the release process, to create an updated doc file for [[$FG_ROOT]]/Docs and ship it with each release [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=15133] | ||
** New/updated Nasal scripts contributed to the base package should be checked to properly support important features like simulator reset, this also applies to Nasal scripts used by aircraft, Nasal scripts that fail these criteria, end up breaking existing features! [https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=956] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ** {{Improve Release Plan|New/updated Nasal scripts contributed to the base package should be checked to properly support important features like simulator reset, this also applies to Nasal scripts used by aircraft, Nasal scripts that fail these criteria, end up breaking existing features! }}[https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=956] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ||
** {{Thumbs up}} regarding aircraft included in the release: "I must stress usefulness of the Autostart feature, present in most aircraft not running at startup. It keeps frustration away from those who just want to enjoy the flight . (Please note that I actually agree with aircraft being shut down at startup, as long as autostart is present, or the starting procedure is trivially doable by just trying what you see in the cockpit.) " [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18240&p=175117#p175117] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ** {{Thumbs up}} regarding aircraft included in the release: "I must stress usefulness of the Autostart feature, present in most aircraft not running at startup. It keeps frustration away from those who just want to enjoy the flight . (Please note that I actually agree with aircraft being shut down at startup, as long as autostart is present, or the starting procedure is trivially doable by just trying what you see in the cockpit.) " [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18240&p=175117#p175117] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ||
** {{Thumbs up}} also, it would apparently make sense to provide tutorials for the default aircraft: "At first startup, I noticed the "Need help? use help->tutorials" message, and because I had no idea how to start up the plane (it would be just plain try and fail, than try something else), I did just that and started some basic tutorials. I wouldn't say going through the tutorials was frustrating, but they were quite boring and I was eager to get in the air as soon as possible." [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ** {{Thumbs up}} also, it would apparently make sense to provide tutorials for the default aircraft: "At first startup, I noticed the "Need help? use help->tutorials" message, and because I had no idea how to start up the plane (it would be just plain try and fail, than try something else), I did just that and started some basic tutorials. I wouldn't say going through the tutorials was frustrating, but they were quite boring and I was eager to get in the air as soon as possible." [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ||
| Line 308: | Line 308: | ||
** How about having a test run a week or two in advance, just to make sure we can indeed produce release installers for Win+Mac - and then release the first RC on December 17th/18th or 19th [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38765.html] | ** How about having a test run a week or two in advance, just to make sure we can indeed produce release installers for Win+Mac - and then release the first RC on December 17th/18th or 19th [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38765.html] | ||
** We've already got a fairly extensive lead-in time for the release. More testers on more platforms would seem to be the answer. Perhaps we should advertize for testers of those platforms that aren't adequately covered by developers running git? Making a complete package available, not just the binaries would help, as testers wouldn't need to be git-aware. [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38764.html] | ** We've already got a fairly extensive lead-in time for the release. More testers on more platforms would seem to be the answer. Perhaps we should advertize for testers of those platforms that aren't adequately covered by developers running git? Making a complete package available, not just the binaries would help, as testers wouldn't need to be git-aware. [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38764.html] | ||
** The main area to improve is to distribute release candidates for all platforms earlier - preferably starting immediately after the freeze. That would already give us more time for testing - without extending the actual freeze period.[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38765.html] | ** {{Improve Release Plan|The main area to improve is to distribute release candidates for all platforms earlier - preferably starting immediately after the freeze. That would already give us more time for testing - without extending the actual freeze period.}}[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38765.html] | ||
** aircraft packages should be prepared prior to the official release date: "For the 2.8 release I didn't start making aircraft download packages (or uploading them to the ftp servers) until after the official release date which was a mistake" [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39227.html] | ** {{Improve Release Plan|aircraft packages should be prepared prior to the official release date: "For the 2.8 release I didn't start making aircraft download packages (or uploading them to the ftp servers) until after the official release date which was a mistake"}} [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39227.html] | ||
** RC's should probably be built with [[Built-in Profiler]] support enabled [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=18839&p=175689#p175689]. | ** {{Improve Release Plan|RC's should probably be built with [[Built-in Profiler]] support enabled}} [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=18839&p=175689#p175689]. | ||
** When releasing RC's do not limit them to Win/Mac binaries, but also create source snapshots so that distros can already work on the next package versions. | ** {{Improve Release Plan|When releasing RC's do not limit them to Win/Mac binaries, but also create source snapshots so that distros can already work on the next package versions.}} | ||
** For RC's it might make sense to distribute binaries with debugging symbols included and [[Built-in Profiler|profiling support enabled]], so that people can more easily provide useful bug reports, or even backtraces. | ** {{Improve Release Plan|For RC's it might make sense to distribute binaries with debugging symbols included}} and [[Built-in Profiler|profiling support enabled]], so that people can more easily provide useful bug reports, or even backtraces. | ||
** Also, many end users still prefer using the forum for making bug reports and don't use the issue tracker - it might help to add a link (button) to the issue tracker to the about dialog or maybe even directly to the help menu ("Report an issue") (same for wiki/troubleshooting/faq ?) | ** Also, many end users still prefer using the forum for making bug reports and don't use the issue tracker - it might help to add a link (button) to the issue tracker to the about dialog or maybe even directly to the help menu ("Report an issue") (same for wiki/troubleshooting/faq ?) | ||
** it might make sense to give wider exposure to our RCs, i.e. via the newsletter - possibly by adjusting the release schedule | ** {{Improve Release Plan|it might make sense to give wider exposure to our RCs, i.e. via the newsletter - possibly by adjusting the release schedule}} | ||
** actually, it would even seem better to use our [[Release promotion]] checklist to send out an "Upcoming Release" announcement 4-6 weeks prior to the actual release, so that all the flightsim websites can notify their users to participate in RC beta testing. | ** actually, it would even seem better to use our [[Release promotion]] checklist to send out an "Upcoming Release" announcement 4-6 weeks prior to the actual release, so that all the flightsim websites can notify their users to participate in RC beta testing. | ||
** a number of forum users reported that the RC/release mirrors were a real bottleneck, and that downloading the 800MB RC installer would often take 2-3 hours (using torrents instead was suggested) | ** a number of forum users reported that the RC/release mirrors were a real bottleneck, and that downloading the 800MB RC installer would often take 2-3 hours (using torrents instead was suggested) | ||