brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoff Macartney <geoff.macart...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:09:11 GMT
Sounds good to me



On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 21:34 Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:

> It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
> there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.
>
> In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
> suggest: it's a minor feature so would probably not be encountered by many
> users. It's a new feature in this version, so it wouldn't be counted as a
> regression. But for those who do try to use the new feature, the failure
> mode is pretty serious.
>
> Often it's better to get opinions and form a consensus rather than write a
> rule book to predict all future problems. You know how Apache likes
> "consensus" and voting about things ;-)
>
> Consensus in this case seems pretty clear to cancelling the current vote
> and making another release candidate.
>
> On 27 Apr 2017 3:14 pm, "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