Thursday, December 3, 2009

Improve Your Releases

There is more to a good software release than a good program.

If you are releasing software and want it to be successful, you have to do more than just write a good program. You need to consider all of the things the user will want to do with your software before and after actually using it.

You can look at the steps below as an interpretation of the phases of the software lifecycle from the perspective of the user. Depending on how well you do your job, the user will have a better or worse experience with each of these phases. If, for one of these phases, you do nothing, the user is likely to have an unpleasant experience when he gets to that phase.


This is the phase that most open-source developers focus on. If we were looking at the software life cycle in a little more detail, we would split this phase into three separate phases: design, code, and test. In commercial development these three phases are often handled by separate groups, but from the user's perspective they can be lumped together as being the factors that contribute to the overall quality and usability of the software.

This is the time in which to consider all of the points below so that you can create your system in a way that makes it easy to do the right thing for all of the other phases of the software life cycle.


Once the software comes out of test, it must be packaged up as a Release. It is useful for a user easily to be able to tell what released artifact he has acquired and what version of that artifact he has. The simplest way to handle this is to define a released artifact as being a single file. If you think you need to release a collection of files, they should be packaged up as a single file, such as in zip, tgz (tar-gzip), dmg or iso format. You can then give each file a name and version number to allow the user to identify it.

You may have a product that is composed of a number of other released artifacts. You can bundle these into one larger artifact that is a collection of the other artifacts plus an installer that can invoke the installers of the other artifacts, or that knows how to install those other artifacts directly. Operating system installers work in this way.

Once your released artifact is in a single file and appropriately labeled, it is easy to take the next step: generate and publish a checksum for that file. If, for any reason, the user is unsure about what artifact and version he has, he can then run a checksum on his file and compare it against your official list of checksums. Using a cryptographic checksum provides protection not only against accidental corruption, but against intentional modification (hacking) of the artifact as well. Depending on the level of security desired, you can use md5, sha1, or sha256 for your checksum. Operating system distributions such as Fedora do this, including the additional security step that the published list of checksum values is digitally signed.


Your user needs to get your released artifacts. Long ago this used to be done by distributing physical media such as DVDs, CDs, floppies, or tapes. Today most distribution is done over the internet, which makes this step far simpler than it used to be.

Open source projects have easy solutions available through such services as sourceforge and github. Many commercial providers also distribute their software from download pages on their web sites, often with additional security such as restricting web access to customers with accounts, and using license files to enable specific functionality in the installed software.

Given how widespread and well-understood this model is, it makes sense to use it for internal software as well: set up a web site where your users can find all of your released artifacts. If the list of artifacts is small, you can just set up a few directories with files in them and serve up those files with your web server. When the number of artifacts gets large enough so that browsing listings gets cumbersome, you can add a search form. If you need to restrict which of your internal users have access to your downloads, you can do that in the same way as commercial vendors do, with password access or license-file control of the installed application.


The user should be able to install the complete application from the downloaded artifact with a single command, or at most two commands (an unpack command followed by execution of a setup script). Installing a Windows application is generally done by downloading an exe file and then executing it; a Mac install is generally done by downloading a dmg file, double clicking on it, and dragging the app into another folder; a Java install is often done by downloading a jar file and then executing it (such as by running java -jar on it). These are all examples of simple installation mechanisms. Once running, an installer can direct the user to select values for options and installation paths.

In particular, you should not require the user to unpack the software and then manually execute a number of other steps such as moving files around or editing config files. These are steps that should be handled by an installer.

When the files are installed on the user's system, there should be an easy way to determine what version is installed and in use. This information should be easily available in the application, such as in an About menu in a GUI application. If a user might install multiple artifacts from your collection, there should be a simple way to get a list of all artifacts installed and in use along with their version numbers so that you can unambiguously tell what versions of your software are being used at that site.


Finally, the user is using your software. If your software is well designed, well written and well tested, the user should have no problems using it and all will be well. In reality, it is unlikely that no user will ever have any problems with your software. When a user does have problems, what will he do (other than grumble or swear at your software, that is)? Assuming the user is motivated to solve the problem rather than just giving up, he will seek out resources that can provide him with the information he needs to solve his problem. You can make his life easier in this step by providing some or all of the following:
  • A Users Guide or set of guides (tutorial, reference).
  • In-application help (context-specific, page-specific, links to the manual, search, how-to).
  • On-line forums where users can share their problems and solutions.
  • Direct support, via telephone, email, or chat.
If a user experiences a crash or runs into a bug, it might be nice if he can easily submit a crash report or a bug report so that you can more effectively fix the problem. If so, you will want that report to automatically include the list of installed artifacts and versions, as discussed above in the Install section.


If your software is successful you will probably release new versions of it. A user who is already using your software should be able to start using the new version of your software with minimal hassle. As with the initial install, installing an upgrade should be done with at most one or two commands, as it could be with an upgrader that guides the user through whatever questions need to be answered for the upgrade.

You can add an option to your application to check for upgrades and ask the user if he wants to download and install them, saving the user the hassle of separately doing those steps. If you choose to implement this, you should allow the user to disable it. There should also still be a way that the user can download an upgrade (as a single file, just as with an initial install), copy it to another machine, and install it there, in case he is running on a machine that is not connected to the network or is behind a firewall that prevents your automated download from working.

There are two ways in which an upgrade is different from an install, leading to two additional goals for the upgrader:
  1. If the user has any configuration or customization, that should be carried over to the new version.
  2. If the user starts running the new version and soon discovers that it is unusable for him, he should quickly be able to roll back to the previous version.
An approach to handle the first goal is to keep the configuration and customization in a separate directory, such as in the user's home directory, or (for Unix systems) in /etc or (for Windows systems) in the Registry. There can still be problems when upgrading if the format of the config and customization files changes, or if the items being configured and customized have changed between versions. Your upgrader should take care of this.

One relatively easy way to satisfy the second goal is to install each version of the application in a separate directory that contains the version number in the name, then providing a current directory that is a link to the version to be used. Rolling back to a previous version might then be as simple as deleting the current link and recreating it to point to the previous version. Ideally, however, this rollback is also done by a program you provide, in case a rollback also requires any other changes such as to the configuration and customization files.

The upgrade and rollback should of course update the list of installed artifacts and current versions.


Occasionally you might want to deliver a minor update or bug fix to your software. You might send out one modified file and ask the user to install it in a specific location to fix a bug.

While this sounds like an easy mechanism for quick fixes, in the long run you will be better off ensuring that your upgrade process is streamlined enough that you can package up that one file in an upgrade and use your upgrade process.

The problem with sending out patch files and doing ad-hoc installs like this is that it makes it very difficult to keep track of what is installed at a customer site. If you send out four or five patches and then the customer starts reporting unique bugs, will you know what software is running at that site so you can track down those bugs? You could work on setting up a system to keep track of those patches, but you might as well invest that effort into making your upgrade process easier to use.

Perhaps you think that each customer will have a different set of patches, and you don't want to send the same patches to all of your customers, so you don't want to make them all standard upgrades. If it is really the case that you want to deliver different things to different customers, then you are not really delivering one artifact, you are delivering separate artifacts to each customer. In this case, you should just call them different artifacts, give them their own version numbers, and send out upgrades for those separate artifacts. In that way you can continue to use your standard upgrade process, and you can always know exactly what your customer has by collecting the list of artifacts and their version numbers for all of the artifacts installed at a customer site.

If you really think you need to send out patches, consider the following goals:
  • It should be easy for the user to install the patch with a single command.
  • It should be difficult for the user to make a mistake when installing the patch, such as could happen if he has to manually install files into specific directories or manually edit any files.
  • It should be easy for the user to rollback the patch if it doesn't work.
  • It should be possible for both you and the user to know exactly what version of software is installed at the site, including what patches have been applied, even if there is a patch of a patch.
If it seems to you that implementing a patch mechanism that does all of this is easier than adding some improvements to your upgrade process and perhaps dividing up a couple of your artifacts to more accurately reflect how you are actually installing them, then go for it.


At some point one of your users might decide that he wants to stop using your software and move to some other package. If you are a commercial software provider you might think this is not something that should be in your list of goals - why should you help out a competitor? - but if you are interested in doing what is best for your user, you should at least recognize this phase of the software lifecycle and make a conscious decision about it. The better you treat a leaving customer, the more likely it is that he will some day be a returning customer.

To support your users in this step, you should provide export tools that allow the user to export all of his data from your application in a standard format. Depending on the application, this might mean exporting a CSV file, an XML file, an Open Document file, or something else.

If you also implement an import capability that reads the same standard file format as your export produces, this could help you in the future if you ever change your internal storage representation from one version to the next: just export from the old version into a file using the standard format, upgrade to the new version, and import that file.


Whether or not a user chooses to move to a different product, he may eventually decide he is done using your software and he would like to remove it from his system. As with the install, it should be possible for the user to uninstall your software with a single command. If an application was installed simply by unpacking it, that single command might be to remove that unpacked directory. With a more complicated installation, uninstallation is likely also to be more complicated, making an uninstaller program more important.

If you have set up your application such that the user-customized portions are separate from the standard install, your uninstaller can give the user the option of keeping those portions. Similarly, if the application maintains user data in its own directories, you should get confirmation from the user before deleting those files and give the user the option of keeping them.

You might also want to consider how you want your installer to behave if the user runs the uninstaller, keeps his customizations and data, then runs the installer. A user might want to do this to downgrade to a previous version if you do not otherwise provide a simple solution for that. Or perhaps you treated a departing customer well enough that he is now returning to your product, in which case he might be pleased to find that his old preferences and customizations are still available.

No comments: