apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: release blockers
Date Sun, 16 Apr 2017 04:52:51 GMT
I believe it should be standard Apache voting rules and timing policy. 
When somebody propose a release and there is no objections (-1), once 
voting is over, the RC can be cut and submitted for the vote. IMO, it is 
reasonable to assume that "way ahead" is one week and not one month.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 4/15/17 16:11, Thomas Weise wrote:
> There is a need for the community to agree on timing/scope of a release.
> That discussion should take place way ahead of cutting it. It is
> appropriate and desirable that folks think about and express their
> preferences on what they would like to see as part of the next release.
>
> It may be a priority for someone else to fix a particular issue, even if
> you would not see it that way. What is important is that everyone who
> suggests to include additional things makes a convincing case for it and is
> able to complete work in time.
>
> Once there is consensus on the scope, I would largely agree with the policy
> on what is allowed to delay or stop a release, as otherwise it will never
> go out.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
>> As both 692 & 687 are already resolved we should less focus on those
>> particular bugs, but in release policies in general. IMO only the following
>> issues should stop the release:
>>
>> 1. Apache license issues
>>       * source code is not properly licensed. It is quite unlikely as
>>         for known file types, we have check in place. Problem may be
>>         with new types not covered by the build)
>>       * usage of Category X license dependencies
>> 2. Backward compatibility issues
>>       * Existing API is covered by semantic versioning, but it may not
>>         be sufficient
>>       * New API introduced that is not marked as Evolving.
>>       * Regression in existing functionality
>> 3. Security vulnerabilities
>> 4. JIRAs marked as Blocker (likely to fall into 3 previous categories
>>     anyway, but possibly some critical bugs may fall into this category
>>     as well)
>>
>> Everything else is a nice to have and should be included into a release if
>> a PR is ready and PR review is complete. It equally applies to bug fixes,
>> new feature implementations and documentation issues. The apex.apache.org
>> web site update is outside of the release cycle and can be done
>> independently of a release.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/17 08:46, Dean Lockgaard wrote:
>>
>>> Vlad,
>>>
>>> Here is my thought process about these tickets.  Both 692 (Apex dev setup
>>> sandbox section to reference Apex website downloads page) and 687 (update
>>> supported Hadoop v2.6 in Apex docs) are Apex documentation issues, and so
>>> they are part of the Apex release process.  Furthermore, 692 directly
>>> references 693 (update Apex website downloads page with cleaned up and
>>> augmented list of 3rd party binaries), so it makes sense to have 693
>>> updated as well, though of course I agree that it is not a part of Apex
>>> core release nor a blocker for the release.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dean,
>>>> 692 and 693 are web site documentation issues and are not part of the
>>>> Apex
>>>> core 3.6.0 release. 687 can be covered in the release README (known
>>>> issues).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>> On 4/13/17 14:11, Dean Lockgaard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to request that 687, 692 and 693 be included in the 3.6.0
>>>>> release.  I will send PRs for these shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Dean
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Amol Kekre <amol@datatorrent.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to cut a release
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thks
>>>>>> Amol
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E:amol@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.datatorrent.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to see 699 and 700 addressed as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Tushar Gosavi <
>>>>>>> tushar@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been four month since 3.5.0 Apex Core release. There
are
>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>> features added to core after 3.5.0. I would like to propose the
3.6.0
>>>>>>>> release of Apex Core, to make these features available to
users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The list of issues fixed in 3.6.0 are:
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>>>>>>>> 3D%20APEXCORE%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
>>>>>>>> 20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.6.0%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20ASC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from above JIRAs, which bug-fixes/features people will
like to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this release. If you feel your JIRA should be included then please
set
>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>> version to 3.6.0 with estimated time for work completion, also
discuss
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> here. Some of the pending pull requests could be incorporated
in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> release. I feel following JIRA should be part of release
>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-649,
>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-678.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me know about your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Tushar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message