User:Mstone/Commentaries/Releases 3: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(Remove RASCI table) |
||
(72 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We make changes to our software for many reasons; however, we make scheduled (major) releases in order to ''deliver'' significant changes to our downstream partners. Major releases may include interface-breaking changes. They are different from [[Unscheduled software release process|unscheduled (minor) releases]] in that they contain larger and more thoroughly planned changes. This essay describes what I expect from people, like OLPC, who say they want to make major software releases. |
|||
{{Draft}} |
|||
= Framework = |
|||
We make changes to our software for many reasons; however, we make scheduled (major) releases in order to deliver significant changes to our downstream clients. Major releases may include interface-breaking changes. They are different from [[Unscheduled software release process|unscheduled (minor) releases]] in that they contain larger and more thoroughly planned changes. |
|||
Scheduled software releases consist of work on four broad and overlapping topics: |
|||
= Process Overview = |
|||
# ''planning'': Figuring out what to do. |
|||
# [[#OBJECTIVES|OBJECTIVES]]: Choose a target month. Solicit goals and priorities for the release. Propose ends and means. |
|||
# |
# ''development'': Generating changes which may help to meet the new goals. |
||
# ''integration'': Integrating the changes in a controlled fashion. |
|||
# [[#RELEASE|RELEASE]]: Generate and execute a release contract for each desired change. Execute the [[Software ECO process]] to deliver the release. |
|||
# |
# ''release'': Helping downstream partners adapt to the new release. |
||
However, this rough breakdown offers little concrete guidance on important issues like: |
|||
= Process Step Details = |
|||
:* what can we reasonably expect to do? |
|||
== OBJECTIVES == |
|||
:* how should we divvy up the work? |
|||
:* what may go wrong? |
|||
:* how do we tell if it's going well or poorly? |
|||
:* how can we do it more, better, faster, cheaper, more clearly, etc.? |
|||
To answer these questions, I have turned to other tools: control theory, concurrent systems theory, and a limited theory of my companions' psyches. |
|||
: '''Control''' theory is applicable because the goal of a software release is to ''hit a moving target'' by making many small changes subject to regular feedback. |
|||
: '''Concurrent''' systems theory is applicable because it provides great vocabulary for describing how the actual work gets done and for its analysis of failure. |
|||
: Finally, '''people''' (psyches) must be considered because we're trying to combine the labor of a fairly specific group of rather quirky and miscommunication-prone ''individuals'' rather than of a network of identical processors running identical software. |
|||
= Observations = |
|||
Here's a word-picture of the problem of making a release drawn from the framework above: |
|||
efficiency deadlock progress trade desires involved triage |
|||
starvation feedback objectives strategy resources ship |
|||
consensus authority informed stale wasted confused supported |
|||
competition race disagree risk affordable rebuffed |
|||
slip cut broken hacked-up tested engaged burned |
|||
know evidence signoff stuck waiting queue rest |
|||
consent responsible accepted consulted contract sick |
|||
production merge freeze slush candidate criteria vacation |
|||
frequency magnitude severity priority window prototype |
|||
blocker polish demotivated process approved workflow |
|||
quality performance usability security correctness interoperability |
|||
change integrate assure document release rebase use |
|||
delegate stovepipe drop announce decide team |
|||
plan believable insane ideal predict guess stall |
|||
critical-path root-cause time budget schedule complex |
|||
If you aren't using the words in this picture on a regular basis then you should either take a close look at your release's situation or update the picture with whatever words I missed. |
|||
= Good Ideas = |
|||
== Objectives & Resources == |
|||
Write an Objectives page (e.g. [[8.2.0]]) recording a consensus on: |
Write an Objectives page (e.g. [[8.2.0]]) recording a consensus on: |
||
* target month. |
:* target month. |
||
* development goals and priorities. |
:* development goals and priorities. |
||
* lead customers. |
:* lead customers. |
||
* feasibility of proposed changes. |
:* feasibility of proposed changes. |
||
Tell everyone, prominently, to watch the page so that they are notified when it changes. |
|||
Then publish a list of everyone you're relying on for help. Get consensus on the list. |
|||
== Release Manager == |
|||
You'll save yourself great pain and suffering if everyone agrees, up front, on who is going to bear the responsibility and authority for deciding what's shipping and what's slipping in your release. This person is your release manager. |
|||
:* ''- This person needs to be willing to speak and write in public. Pro-actively.'' |
|||
You need to have a release manager who you can rely on to make the release happen. |
|||
:* ''- Therefore, your release manager needs to be good at noticing people are stuck or who could be more involved and at getting them unstuck or more involved.'' |
|||
You need a release manager who keeps you informed about the tradeoffs that they are making between risks, costs, and opportunities. |
|||
:* ''- Demand evidence and persuasive written arguments. Publicly.'' |
|||
Module maintainers, product management, and the release team will be responsible for building and maintaining this consensus based on communal, customer, and institutional feedback. All three groups will be responsible for acting to achieve its mandates, e.g. as advisers, maintainers, and managers. |
|||
== Release Contracts == |
|||
{{:Release contracts}} |
|||
We have learned that certain minimum amounts of time must be allocated to integration and testing. The following example schedule records some of this knowledge: |
|||
== Schedule == |
|||
# >90-60 days before target date '''Steam'''. Changes can be proposed at will and ''should'' be proposed as early as possible. |
|||
# 60-30 days before target date '''Water'''. Proposals must pass muster with the release team. Release contracts should be written and integration should occur. This is ''feature-level change control''. |
|||
# 30 days before target date '''Ice'''. We branch for release and the release team produces release candidates as needed under ''package-level change-control''. Developers should be focused on fixing bugs. |
|||
# <15 days before target date '''Final Test'''. Get consensus from test, QA, and engineering communities, then finish the [[USR_Checklist|Release Process Checklist]]. |
|||
# Release day. '''Announcement Day'''. Once Release checklist is complete, Kim sends announcement e-mail approving release for production. |
|||
I have learned that certain minimum amounts of time must be allocated to integration and testing. I conceptualize this requirement by thinking of the release as passing through several necessary "phases", arranged like so: |
|||
== DEVELOPMENT == |
|||
# >60 days before target date is '''Steam'''. |
|||
Development consists of creating potentially releasable changes during a ''Steam'' period (no change control) and a ''Water'' period (feature-level change control). |
|||
#* Changes can be proposed at will and ''should'' be proposed as early as possible. |
|||
#* There is great freedom to propose changes because resources have only been loosely allocated toward integrating and testing the proposed changes. |
|||
#* The transition to ''Water'' occurs when all release contracts are signed. |
|||
# 60-30 days before target date is '''Water'''. |
|||
#* This is ''feature-level change control'' -- changes requiring reallocation of integration, test, or downstream resources (i.e. requiring a new release contract) are now likely to be deferred. |
|||
#* Minor changes can still be added without approval until the transition to ''Ice''. Changes requiring great coordination to deliver like string changes and UI changes will be deferred if possible. |
|||
# 30 days before target date is '''Ice'''. |
|||
#* ''Ice'' begins when we branch for release so that the release team can produce release candidate builds as needed under ''package-level change control''. |
|||
#* The effect of this change control is that fixes -- often for "blockers" or "polish" -- are more selectively merged. |
|||
#* You exit ''Ice'' by executing the [[Software ECO process]] and its accompanying [[USR_Checklist|Release Process Checklist]]. |
|||
# Release day. '''Announcement Day'''. Once Release checklist is complete, you're done! |
|||
== Habits == |
|||
'''Occurs:''' ''MORE than 60 days before target date'' |
|||
There are several habits of mind and practice which I have found among participants in successful release efforts and against which I judge current ones: |
|||
Prior to the transition to ''Water'' (feature-level change control), there is great freedom to propose changes because resources have not been allocated toward integrating and testing the proposed changes. We allocate these resources with [[Scheduled software release process#Contracts|release contracts]]. |
|||
# '''Details matter''', and the definitions need to be negotiated publicly and up front. What do these words and phrases mean: ''architecture'', ''design'', ''X was tested'', ''X is fixed'', ''X will scale'', ''we support'', ...? |
|||
=== WATER === |
|||
# '''Provide evidence.''' You're touching lives, so you had better be able to justify your decisions. |
|||
'''Occurs:''' ''60-30 days before target date'' |
|||
# '''Improve''' the signal-to-noise ratio by shaping conversations to avoid ratholes -- prefer ''"how long should we block on X?"'' to ''"is X a blocker?"''. |
|||
# '''Listen''' more and better than you speak... but speak well, and '''teach''' when you do. Moderate conversations to ensure that everyone who needs to be heard, is. '''Practice.''' |
|||
# '''Empower the people you trust'''. Leave things and people better than you found them. |
|||
# '''Write''', '''speak''', '''illustrate''', and '''test''' your ideas so that you may improve them. |
|||
# Above all, get people '''unstuck'''. (Remember that you can't expect people to do things you aren't willing to do yourself.) |
|||
== Infrastructure == |
|||
When ''Steam'' transitions to ''Water'', changes requiring reallocation of integration, test, or downstream resources (i.e. requiring a new release contract) will require approval by module maintainers and Release Management before being accepted. Minor changes can still be added without approval until the transition to ''Ice''. Changes requiring great coordination to deliver like string changes and UI changes will be deferred if possible. |
|||
Watch how you and your companions ''are'' collaborating. |
|||
By the end of ''Water'', developers are expected to have: |
|||
Then create affordances to accelerate, clarify, and record those interactions. |
|||
* Created release contracts for each desired change. See [http://dev.laptop.org/report/18 previous examples]. |
|||
Examples from 8.2.0: |
|||
== RELEASE == |
|||
:* the [[Trac ticket workflow|next_action]] field, |
|||
Release consists of integrating desirable changes created during development, then executing the [[Software ECO process]] to finalize the result. |
|||
:* [[Triagebot]], |
|||
:* [[Friends in Testing]], |
|||
:* [[Test cases 8.2.0]] |
|||
Other notes on infrastructure: |
|||
=== ICE === |
|||
'''Occurs:''' ''30-0 days before target date'' |
|||
# Grant permissions liberally, and take regular backups. Better yet, [http://git.or.cz distribute]. |
|||
When ''Water'' transitions to ''Ice'', the release team will branch the development stream twice creating ''updates'' and ''testing'' build streams. |
|||
# Be wary of infrastructure that you can't monitor, can't reproduce, or can't integrate with preexisting systems. |
|||
== Education == |
|||
* Both the ''updates'' and ''testing'' streams will be placed under package-level change control by the release team. |
|||
* The ''updates'' stream will be used to house packages being considered by the release team for insertion into the ''testing'' stream. |
|||
* Official QA will consider builds from the ''testing'' stream. When approved by official QA, these builds can become [[Software ECO process#CANDIDATE BUILD|release candidates]] as part of the underlying [[Software ECO process]] being executed by the release team. |
|||
Go read some books on [http://www.amazon.com/Mythical-Man-Month-Software-Engineering-Anniversary/dp/0201835959 software development], [http://www.amazon.com/Software-Project-Survival-Guide-Practices/dp/1572316217 release management], [[User:Mstone/Bibliography#Testing|software quality assurance]], [http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Meridian-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0452010713 military strategy], [http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Drucker-Druckers-Writings-Management/dp/0066210879 management], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Method project management], [http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Dialogue-Reuel-L-Howe/dp/0866838864 communication dynamics], and [http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Evidence-Edward-R-Tufte/dp/0961392177 evidence]. There are lots of other good ones. |
|||
== DEPLOYMENT == |
|||
Then go talk about what you've learned with other people who've been there before. |
|||
Upon completion of the [[Software ECO process]], a new reference operating system is made available. However, further work must be done to adapt this component to the needs of downstream partners. |
Latest revision as of 18:46, 26 August 2012
We make changes to our software for many reasons; however, we make scheduled (major) releases in order to deliver significant changes to our downstream partners. Major releases may include interface-breaking changes. They are different from unscheduled (minor) releases in that they contain larger and more thoroughly planned changes. This essay describes what I expect from people, like OLPC, who say they want to make major software releases.
Framework
Scheduled software releases consist of work on four broad and overlapping topics:
- planning: Figuring out what to do.
- development: Generating changes which may help to meet the new goals.
- integration: Integrating the changes in a controlled fashion.
- release: Helping downstream partners adapt to the new release.
However, this rough breakdown offers little concrete guidance on important issues like:
- what can we reasonably expect to do?
- how should we divvy up the work?
- what may go wrong?
- how do we tell if it's going well or poorly?
- how can we do it more, better, faster, cheaper, more clearly, etc.?
To answer these questions, I have turned to other tools: control theory, concurrent systems theory, and a limited theory of my companions' psyches.
- Control theory is applicable because the goal of a software release is to hit a moving target by making many small changes subject to regular feedback.
- Concurrent systems theory is applicable because it provides great vocabulary for describing how the actual work gets done and for its analysis of failure.
- Finally, people (psyches) must be considered because we're trying to combine the labor of a fairly specific group of rather quirky and miscommunication-prone individuals rather than of a network of identical processors running identical software.
Observations
Here's a word-picture of the problem of making a release drawn from the framework above:
efficiency deadlock progress trade desires involved triage starvation feedback objectives strategy resources ship consensus authority informed stale wasted confused supported competition race disagree risk affordable rebuffed slip cut broken hacked-up tested engaged burned know evidence signoff stuck waiting queue rest consent responsible accepted consulted contract sick production merge freeze slush candidate criteria vacation frequency magnitude severity priority window prototype blocker polish demotivated process approved workflow quality performance usability security correctness interoperability change integrate assure document release rebase use delegate stovepipe drop announce decide team plan believable insane ideal predict guess stall critical-path root-cause time budget schedule complex
If you aren't using the words in this picture on a regular basis then you should either take a close look at your release's situation or update the picture with whatever words I missed.
Good Ideas
Objectives & Resources
Write an Objectives page (e.g. 8.2.0) recording a consensus on:
- target month.
- development goals and priorities.
- lead customers.
- feasibility of proposed changes.
Tell everyone, prominently, to watch the page so that they are notified when it changes.
Then publish a list of everyone you're relying on for help. Get consensus on the list.
Release Manager
You'll save yourself great pain and suffering if everyone agrees, up front, on who is going to bear the responsibility and authority for deciding what's shipping and what's slipping in your release. This person is your release manager.
- - This person needs to be willing to speak and write in public. Pro-actively.
You need to have a release manager who you can rely on to make the release happen.
- - Therefore, your release manager needs to be good at noticing people are stuck or who could be more involved and at getting them unstuck or more involved.
You need a release manager who keeps you informed about the tradeoffs that they are making between risks, costs, and opportunities.
- - Demand evidence and persuasive written arguments. Publicly.
Release Contracts
A release contract is an agreement between the release team and one or more contributors to attempt to integrate some desirable change into a release build.
Release contracts normally describe:
- the required quality of an acceptable change,
- a test plan for judging the quality of a proposed change, and
- who will execute the test plan.
(Typically, violation of a release contract will result in deferral of the proposed change.)
Examples are available. See our Trac conventions for help interpreting the display.
Schedule
I have learned that certain minimum amounts of time must be allocated to integration and testing. I conceptualize this requirement by thinking of the release as passing through several necessary "phases", arranged like so:
- >60 days before target date is Steam.
- Changes can be proposed at will and should be proposed as early as possible.
- There is great freedom to propose changes because resources have only been loosely allocated toward integrating and testing the proposed changes.
- The transition to Water occurs when all release contracts are signed.
- 60-30 days before target date is Water.
- This is feature-level change control -- changes requiring reallocation of integration, test, or downstream resources (i.e. requiring a new release contract) are now likely to be deferred.
- Minor changes can still be added without approval until the transition to Ice. Changes requiring great coordination to deliver like string changes and UI changes will be deferred if possible.
- 30 days before target date is Ice.
- Ice begins when we branch for release so that the release team can produce release candidate builds as needed under package-level change control.
- The effect of this change control is that fixes -- often for "blockers" or "polish" -- are more selectively merged.
- You exit Ice by executing the Software ECO process and its accompanying Release Process Checklist.
- Release day. Announcement Day. Once Release checklist is complete, you're done!
Habits
There are several habits of mind and practice which I have found among participants in successful release efforts and against which I judge current ones:
- Details matter, and the definitions need to be negotiated publicly and up front. What do these words and phrases mean: architecture, design, X was tested, X is fixed, X will scale, we support, ...?
- Provide evidence. You're touching lives, so you had better be able to justify your decisions.
- Improve the signal-to-noise ratio by shaping conversations to avoid ratholes -- prefer "how long should we block on X?" to "is X a blocker?".
- Listen more and better than you speak... but speak well, and teach when you do. Moderate conversations to ensure that everyone who needs to be heard, is. Practice.
- Empower the people you trust. Leave things and people better than you found them.
- Write, speak, illustrate, and test your ideas so that you may improve them.
- Above all, get people unstuck. (Remember that you can't expect people to do things you aren't willing to do yourself.)
Infrastructure
Watch how you and your companions are collaborating.
Then create affordances to accelerate, clarify, and record those interactions.
Examples from 8.2.0:
- the next_action field,
- Triagebot,
- Friends in Testing,
- Test cases 8.2.0
Other notes on infrastructure:
- Grant permissions liberally, and take regular backups. Better yet, distribute.
- Be wary of infrastructure that you can't monitor, can't reproduce, or can't integrate with preexisting systems.
Education
Go read some books on software development, release management, software quality assurance, military strategy, management, project management, communication dynamics, and evidence. There are lots of other good ones.
Then go talk about what you've learned with other people who've been there before.