How did it go - what could we do differently next time?
Look at how things fit together - Lynette spent time to write up a process based on documented branching models.
(1) trunk-based development
That branch should be contained and ready to go - so when we cut a big release - the normal flow would be to deploy for QA testing and continue to develop on Master as that's going on. If there's a conflict between flow of QA testing and ensuringgood QA and release and good development - can branch a release branch.
Anything that happens on a long lived branch needs to be back-ported from master
Biggest problems with 2.1 release; uncertainty about numbering (resolved fairly easily)
Amount of resources we had to ask for from specific people isn't sustainable
the Hyrax WG will help with that in the future
Cut another release in a week as Hyrax WG works. Coordinate with SVT and Chris as QA lead (Diaz).
As Hyrax WG spins up - talk with Chris about QA on minor releases. Fairly good sense for what that looks like.
Big Kudos to QA testing (Lynette). And thanks to Lynette!