[Zope3-dev] Re: zope.dottedname doesn't have a CHANGES.txt (again?)

[Jim Fulton]

On Oct 2, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:14, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> One hole I see is giving people guidance on what needs to be tested
>> (and how) before a release is made.  My preference would be to rely
>> heavily on judgement with a few checks so as not to make things too
>> heavy.  This might rule out some releasers.

This is odd text to quote, considering what follows. Do you really  
think that an automated tool is going to be able to determine on a  
case by case basis what needs to be tested?  Heck, I find it hard to  
judge what is best to test.  I think we need to think about what the  
process needs to be. It's not at all clear to me and yet you are  
ready to automate it.   I can only hope that this wasn't the text you  
intended to quote.

> I want tools! Actually, I just want one tool.

You want a silver bullet.

> 70% of the release process is
> repetition and that needs to be factored into a tool.

I think that is overly optimistic, but I have an open mind. Frankly  
though, your desire for an automated tool frightens me.

> This tool should have
> been written before the Zope trunk was blown into pieces, but it  
> wasn't. :-(

I'm skeptical that such a tool can do that much. Certainly, when we  
broke the trunk up, we didn't know what all the issues would be.  We  
couldn't automate a process we didn't yet fully understand. My only  
real regret is that we broke things too far too fast, but that is  
water under the bridge.

Some of the fouls this week had nothing to do with the release  
process.  The breakage you (I assume) and Roger caused by removing  
needed files would have caused just as much havoc in the old days.   
You seem to think that the trunk is everything, so making changes  
there and adjusting all of the effected software *on the trunk* is  
enough.  This kind of breakage used to occur before and caused much  
pain for 3rd-party consumers of the Zope 3 tree.

Other breakage occurred after people tried to give you advice on how  
to do things more reliably.  Saying you need a tool is not an excuse  
for ignoring advice.

> There is no way that we will be able to support this many packages  
> in the
> future, if we keep doing this manually.

You should know that we already *are* maintaining this many packages.  
People have been able to figure out how to release packages in a  
fairly stable way.  We're learning from our mistakes and creating  
processes to make things better.

> I have already spent days on doing
> eggs, when I really just wanted to code. :-(

Then stop.  The current process is too manual and requires too much  
judgement for you.  OK, then stop updating core packages.

We all make mistakes.  Even with the best tools, processes and  
intentions, bad things will happen.  No one will hold a grudge as  
long as people are being responsible and trying to do the right  
thing.  OTOH, while wishing for a tool and or for better processes is  
fine, blaming the current processes for your mistakes is getting  
tiresome.

jim

--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation