activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ 5.3.0
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:09:59 GMT
Hi,

source archive builds just fine and maven site building is in the process.
The new vote call is posted on the list.

David, please let us know how ee5 tck went.

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net


On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> thanks for your input on this release. It was my mistake that after 12
> hours of trying to get all this packed, I rushed the vote email without
> enough info on protobuf dependency, building the source, etc. But we wanted
> to publish release artifacts for reviewing as soon as possible so we can
> have it tested and reviewed by other folks.
>
> I'll verify now that everything builds from source archives, build maven
> site (this can take a while because of cobertura reports) and write a new
> email with detailed description of all components of the build.
>
> Of course if anything else pops out in the meantime, we'll merge it and
> rebuild the staging repo.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
>
> Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> I went to some trouble a while back to set up the build to be more up to
>> date and use the latest release technology but I don't seem to have updated
>> the instructions.  It looks to me as if the release candidate is technically
>> fine from the artifacts generated.  As noted below, I'm strongly -1 on
>> releasing things labelled RC1 etc.  Since Dejan has just gone through the
>> process he's probably best qualified to write accurate instructions but I
>> can have a go if people would prefer.
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Hiram Chirino <chirino@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  It's been deployed to a staging repo.  See my earlier reply about that
>>>> in
>>>> this thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then we should probably vote on and release that module separately and
>>> before the full ActiveMQ release. The ActiveMQ release candidates
>>> shouldn't make use of candidate modules located in temporary repos.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see the point of this rule as long as the vote using the
>> not-yet-released artifact mentions that it depends on the
>> not-yet-released-artifact's vote.  We do this all the time in geronimo.
>>
>>
>>>  Also, why has there been no discussion regarding the preparation for
>>>>> this release on the dev list?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Isn't that what what's going on now?
>>>>
>>>> IMHO rolling release candidates is the best way to get folks engaged and
>>>> discussing the current state of the product and whats still missing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>  As we have long seen in the History of ActiveMQ releases.. it typically
>>>> takes several release candidates before everyone's happy.  I guess this
>>>> first release candidate was no different!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> My idea of a release candidate is a bunch of artifacts in a nexus staging
>> repo that we vote on.  If the vote passes, we promote them, if the vote
>> fails we drop them and remove the tag they were built from.  As such the
>> stuff in the repo and tag needs to be what we want to release, including
>> correct release version numbers.
>>
>>  Agreed, release candidates are the best way to seek consensus for a
>>> release. To improve upon the way we go about handling releases, I'd
>>> like to suggest a couple minor changes:
>>>
>>> * Since tags are supposed to be a snapshot in time and therefore
>>> shouldn't change, I'd like to suggest that the tag name be changed to
>>> reflect the fact that it's a release candidate, e.g.,
>>> activemq-5.3.0-RC1, etc. Either that or we could instead work from a
>>> branch that can change as much as necessary until there's agreement on
>>> which candidate to release.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you are suggesting here.  Has someone proposed
>> changing the tag created by the release plugin?
>>
>>
>>> * I'd also like to suggest that tarballs and zips for each release
>>> candidate be labeled as such, e.g.,
>>> apache-activemq-5.3.0-RC1-bin.tar.gz,
>>> apache-activemq-5.3.0-RC2-bin.tar.gz, etc. This way there is no
>>> confusion and downloaded items are clearly marked as a release
>>> candidate and not a full 5.3 release.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you plan to publish these RCx as real releases after voting on
>> them, IMO this is a terrible idea.  After we find something that's
>> acceptable we would have to remove the tag we just decided was OK and
>> re-release with a new name.
>>
>>
>>> Also, while we're discussing releases, we should make sure that the
>>> release guide reflects the latest practices:
>>>
>>> http://activemq.apache.org/release-guide.html
>>>
>>> I see that it needs to be updated to include the process for release
>>> candidates.
>>>
>>>  That's why I'm grateful to anyone who take the initiative to start
>>>> rolling
>>>> the release candidates.  They are basically taking on a tough job and
>>>> prodding the rest of to get involved the release!
>>>>
>>>
>> Releasing is amazingly time consuming, even with the latest greatest maven
>> tooling.  I wouldn't have minded an email saying "I'm gonna push a release
>> candidate tomorrow" but this release has been on deck for months now.... I'm
>> not complaining now that there's some action.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> We really do need to start doing releases more often.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1 to releasing more often. We should probably aim for more frequent
>>> minor releases, i.e., 5.2.1, 5.2.2, etc. so fixes are delivered
>>> faster.
>>>
>>
>> Wishing for more releases is great, but its hard to believe the amount of
>> time it takes to prepare a release candidate.  I'll be really happy to see
>> 5.3 released.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>> Bruce
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>> );'
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message