brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Heneveld <alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:24:06 GMT
It has to be a judgment call. I tend to agree this is a blocker.

Best
Alex

On 27 Apr 2017 15:14, "Geoff Macartney" <geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:

> What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
> don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we create
> some?
>
> My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
>
> 1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
> should block the release.
> 2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
> - if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn, then
> it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
> - if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not block
> this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely not
> causing users problems)
> 3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
> regression?).
>
> what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?
>
> Geoff
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 Richard,
> >
> > I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
> >
> > Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
> > agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
> > a release?
> >
> > On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
> > > using WinRmCommandSensor".
> > >
> > > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
> > >
> > > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major
> issue
> > in
> > > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
> > > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this will
> > > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
> > itself.
> > >
> > > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
> > currently
> > > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
> > > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy code
> > > plus a fix into a new package.
> > >
> > > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
> > >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> >
>

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