Lieutenant needed: build and release process

[Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 12:31:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Also it sounds as if you think that someone actually does any 
> coordination about what must go into release. As far as I am 
> aware there is no such thing, even http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda 
> is just a convention. Currently releases are based exclusively 
> on a time frame + regression list (all that was in master goes 
> to the release branch and is kept there until known regressions 
> are fixed, repeat for the next cycle).

Are you satisfied with the current process?

Let me summarize some important drawbacks of the current workflow:

1. No clear defined deadline for preparing a merge-able PR.

2. Unorganized PR merge campaigns. The people merging the PR are 
doing a great job, but they do this triggered by arbitrary 
events: too many open PRs, a cool new PR appears, somebody poke 
them on forum, or simply have some time for this kind of work.

3. Somehow arbitrary merge criteria. Having a defined merge 
window, when some people do just PR merges, will implicitly 
produce more predictable and uniform acceptance criteria.

4. Lack of focus during test phase. Maybe this is the main reason 
for the v2.066 regressions. Some people keep merging new PRs, 
before the old ones are proven done during the test phase. Even 
Walter was annoyed a couple of times by the multitude of versions 
that the people are simultaneously working on.

5. Rotting old PRs. The "merge window" phase would be a defined 
recurrent occasion to review and decide about those.