April 10th, 2012
Just a quick announcement that the newest version of QuickRelease has shipped!
(Lucky!) 0.13, most notably, has the following updates/improvements:
- Entries from your release configuration files can now be coerced by the ConfigSpec class into dictionaries; you can do this be defining an item in the configuration file with the syntax [key1 value1] [key2 value2]
- You can now define command-line overrides for variables; you must set allow_config_overrides to true in your config file to allow this behavior, but after doing so, you can redefine variables from the commandline, like so: quickrelease -p SomeProcess -c myconfig.cfg -DoverrideVariable=overrideValue -DanotherOverride=somethingElse. This is especially useful for processes that are used daily, and thus need minor configuration changes.
- Addition of a chdir() utility method that follows shell semantics; this is a bit of a random feature, but some programs (Perforce’s p4 command line utility, most notably) rely on a correctly-set PWD environment variable instead of getcwd(3) to know which directory they’re operating in; this function provides a compatibility layer for such programs.
- You can now pass either a filename or an input stream to RunShellCommand(), and it will hook this up to the calling process. This is useful for some programs (again, notably, p4) where you can script their behavior by giving them commands via STDIN.
Packages can be grabbed directly from github. (We’ll be publishing “proper” packages for future releases.)
As always, if you run into any problems, don’t hesitate to let us know
And if you’re interested in the project, feel free to follow/fork us on github!
The focus on 0.14 will be something many have been asking for: more documentation, and examples, including a sample set of processes, steps, and configuration to build Firefox!
Join the Conversation: No Comments »
V1055
April 3rd, 2012
My first experience with release engineering was almost fifteen years ago: I did a stint with Netscape’s release engineering team for a summer. I know I didn’t quite get why at the time, but I was hooked immediately.
My professional focus has been on build/release engineering ever since.
At various times, it’s been a difficult road to walk. I truly believe release engineering and configuration management to be an incredibly important part of the software development process, that when done right, can provide an incredible amount of value, from the smallest startups to the largest multinational corporations.
But “RelEng” is often the last part of the process to be designed, and the last part of the team to be filled. It’s often under-resourced, and at that point, it’s usually interrupt driven, (by software that needs shipping). It’s also difficult to change this trajectory, because releng is one of those things that is generally unseen and unheard, until they (or the infrastructure they’re responsible for) become the blocking factor to a ship-date.
| |
How can we approach complex and obstacle-ridden
processes safely and successfully every time? |
I think there’s a better way to approach these problems.
Friends and colleagues often giggle at me when I make repeated references to aviation in the context of release engineering. Being a pilot, I can’t help but call out the similarities as I see them. But I see so many similarities because I really do feel there is an aspect to that nature of work—whether it be air traffic control, 9-1-1 dispatch, or management of the utility grid—that we, as software engineering practitioners, can learn from and apply to make shipping software more simple, transparent, and predictable.
To that end, today, I’m launching a company: Release Engineering Approaches.
We provide a full range of build/release engineering consulting services including release engineering consulting, build engineering automation & tooling, and DevOps infrastructure support.
Our approach is to integrate those “operational” lessons and practices that so many other industries have (often painfully) learned, to make shipping whatever type of software you need to ship… as simple as possible. Every time.
If consistently and simply shipping your bits are something you struggle with, give us a shout out and let’s discuss how we can help!
To new approaches!
Join the Conversation: 4 Comments »
V1047
March 9th, 2012
I’m still very much enjoying Robert Glass’ The Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering1
I’m still making my way through it, but I wanted to call out a corollary to one of the facts he covers (which even he calls out as possibly controversial):
An Australian colleague, Steve Jenkin, suggested to me his view of the rate of progress of the software profession. It’s average experience level, he said, has tended to remain constant over time. … [W]hat he meant was: with the explosion of newcomers arriving in this fast-growing profession, the increasing experience level of the growing-olders is more than overcome by the low experience level of the hordes of newbies. As I thought a bit about what Steve said, I came to this thought that I would like to introduce as a corollary:
The wisdom of the software field is not increasing.
If our experience level is not growing, then neither is our wisdom level. In fact, in our mad rush toward the new, we tend to discard much of the old. (For example, software’s newest and most popular methodologies, like Extreme and Agile, tend to make a point of rejecting the accumulated wisdom of the older methodologies.)
This insight particularly spoke to me.
It may be the local environment in which I work, or maybe the (professional) [echo?] chamber I choose to put myself in. Maybe it’s a pattern in the history that repeats every four-to-five years2, or maybe it is a fundamental shift in the industry.
In any event, the “DVCS solves all developer problems” and “Cloud solves all infrastructure problems” and “NoSQL solves all scaling problems” and “Rails is the only way to develop a website”-cacophony I often find myself in the middle of… may just be an indication that Glass’ corollary is, indeed, right.
Fred Brooks wrote almost 25 years ago that despite claims to the contrary, no silver bullet exists to reduce complexity of the software development process. And yet it’s become almost fashionable in the space to proclaim as loudly (and proudly) as one can: “Here’s a statement that implies I don’t know the history of the industry in which I practice my craft.”
If true, that’s certainly another point in support of Glass’ corollary.
I’m apparently not the only one who’s noticed the industry may be waking up to what Glass posits was true all along.
What do you think?
_______________
1 Thanks again for the reco, Ali!
2 What I tend to refer to as “an Internet generation”
Join the Conversation: 4 Comments »
V1042
March 7th, 2012
There’s been a lot of activity in the Mozilla community over the past 36 hours regarding community standards, free speech issues, and LGBTQ issues.
It’s great to see these conversations happening; I believe this is precisely what should happen in a community when disagreement arises.
One aspect continues to confuse me1: many of those discussing the issue seem to hold a position predicated on the assumption that Mozilla has claimed support for LGBTQ individuals or (more specifically) same-sex marriage.
I can find no documented substance to this assumption2.
Not to call out the pink3 elephant in the room, but in 2008, when the California constitutional amendment involving the issue, Proposition 8, was on the ballot, a number of companies, including Apple, Google, and “numerous biotech companies“4 all very publicly stated their official position against the proposition5,6.
Mozilla Corporation abdicated taking a position7.
It’s an open “secret” that Mozilla Foundation board member and Corporation CTO Brendan Eich donated money to support the proposition8.
Mozilla, last I knew, does not have any additional protections, stipulations, or benefits9 for LGBTQ individuals not already required by California law.
So when I read statements like…
Tim saying:
I’m embarrassed to work for Mozilla right now.
Or Christie saying:
Many members of the community, including myself, as well as members of the general public consider Planet Mozilla a Mozilla news source… . We wouldn’t allow hate-speech there and, we shouldn’t tolerate it on Planet, either. Right now, I feel unsafe and unwelcome at Mozilla.
Or Tim (later) saying:
I feel that my contributions considered less important because I’m queer. If it’s so important to Mozilla to allow speech like Gerv’s speech under the Mozilla banner that it’s worth discarding a percentage of the contributions made by queer and ally employees, then I guess that’s not my decision to make, though I would wonder why and who is accountable for making that trade.”
Or Lukas saying:
It seems like we protect our visual brand identity more than we protect what the Mozilla values appear to be when we refuse to set a minimum code of conduct for participation in our community. Who are we protecting when we do that? Who’s life is enriched by the inclusion of posts that support bigoted points of view?
Or Matej saying:
The point is that it appeared on Planet, which could easily be seen by the general public as an official Mozilla channel that supports the points of view it distributes.
Or Justin saying:
I’d never felt more unwelcome or had my trust broken in a Mozilla setting like that before. I don’t care whether it’s called “hate speech” or “a valid opinion” or whatever, I never want to feel like that again in a Mozilla environment.
Or Al saying:
One thing that I cannot abide is prejudicial actions within that community which go against its basic ethos of inclusiveness and betterment for the good of all.
Or Graydon saying:
Gerv just announced to the internet, using my company’s resources, that my mom isn’t married. And my company is now supporting Gerv’s continued use of our resources (domain name, trademarks, hardware, bandwidth) this way. What shall I tell my mom when I next visit her? “Hi mom, say, did you see that bit where my company endorsed homophobic abuse to deprive you of your marriage?
Or Gregg saying:
That this particular impoliteness carries Mozilla’s domain name and branding is the biggest bummer of all. I want to be proud of my company and my community, and I am not right now.
… I can certainly understand how they all could feel that way.
But given the above history, it’s probably worth examining the assumptions on which those positions are based, and separating out “how Mozilla actually is” from “how we think Mozilla is, and how we would like Mozilla to be.”
If we’re truly concerned about Mozilla’s level of inclusiveness, stance on civil rights, and support for LGBTQ (community) members, then I think it’s clear that a community member’s post on Planet isn’t the first place to be focusing energies.
_______________
1 Which was hinted at in comments on my previous post
2 Someone: PROVE ME WRONG. PLEASE
3 *cough*
4 I learned something new!
5 Thus, in support of same-sex marriage. Or, at least, not in support of defining marriage into law
6 Today, both Microsoft and Amazon publicly support marriage equality in their home states
7 As did the Mozilla Foundation; but there may be 501(c)(3) requirements involved there
8 Which, to be very clear, is entirely his right, and I am not herein stating a personal opinion on this fact; I am merely reporting it as such, and only in the contexts of inclusion with other Silicon Valley executives’ public statements in the record and one possible explanation why Mozilla may not have followed other technology companies
9 e.g. health coverage for domestic partners
Join the Conversation: 31 Comments »
V1004
March 7th, 2012
This is NOT the Planet’s module owner and peers’ official position on today’s events; I worked very hard with my esteemed colleagues to write that post. And I’m proud of our words. Below are some additional thoughts, which are entirely my own.
If it wasn’t for me, planet.mozilla.org might not be an official Mozilla project module.
That’s a tall claim, so allow me tell a story: see, planet used to be managed by a single person.
It was a thankless job that, apparently, no one else wanted. As was that individual’s purview, content filtering and feed handling decisions were made solely by him. The community wasn’t involved, and there was little-to-no transparency.
This bothered me.
Mozilla was starting other governance initiatives at the time, and this seemed like a perfect example of something to transition to this new system. Asa was the first module owner.
I, being That GuyTM who opened his big fat mouth, became a peer.
We’ve made what I believe to be the most critically important changes to how Planet is operated: more transparent, with a clear policies to facilitate the community function Planet serves.
And so I’m personally very proud of what raising my voice, via that post in 2007, has achieved: a Planet that, through our work together, has better served the Mozilla community.
Today, some advocated a return to the pre-module days.
They wanted a particular post they personally disagreed with removed.
They wanted feeds changed, so such content would never appear on Planet again.
They wanted a Mozilla community member’s1 voice quietly silenced.
And as a Planet module peer, that is not something I will advocate for or be a party to.
Ever.
I want to make one thing very perfectly clear: I cannot express the degree to which I disagree with Gerv on this particular issue. But Planet, in its current role, has been a completely unmoderated, open forum for Mozilla community members to express themselves, and I will defend his right to say it, despite vehement disagreement with him.
But let us also be clear: advocating a particular political position in a civil tone is not “hate speech.”
It is not a “safe space” violation2.
And the absolute worst thing anyone making such a claim or disagreeing with the position can do is try to censor the discourse.
History, including Planet’s own, has shown time and again: education, empathy, and understanding are not served by the use of “administrative”3 methods to silence an opinion some find unapaltable. And there is an important distinction to be made between defending such opinions and endorsing them.
Fundamentally, today’s events have raised the question about Planet’s role and purpose within the Mozilla community. That’s a fine (and necessary) discussion to have. But it wasn’t a conversation anyone today proposed having.
To anyone in the Mozilla Community who feels “unsafe and unwelcome,” I encourage you to raise your own voice and speak your own position4.
I’ll be right here, standing for your right to say it on Planet and in the Mozilla community, too.
_______________
1 And I would certainly like to hear an argument that Gerv is not a Mozilla community member
2 Unless, of course, you consider “safe space” to mean “a space where ideas-I-don’t like are prevented from occurring,” in which case, no: Planet is not a “safe space.” And neither is “The Open Web…”
3 Or harsher
4 Mozilla has, in fact, been surprisingly silent on this particular issue
Join the Conversation: 44 Comments »
V993
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »