esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petter√łe <yoji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:01:37 GMT
You are sooooooooo turning into a geek :->


On 11. mars 2010, at 16.00, Richard Hirsch wrote:

> I've discovered a bunch of cool features in maven to help in cutting
> releases. I can't wait to try them out.
> 
> D.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ok, I've set the issue to "Fixed". The Release 1.0-RC2 roadmap now
>> looks nice and green :-)  -
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>> 
>> Ethan
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> This is closed
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I've moved all open Jira issues except ESME-162 from "Release 1.0-RC2"
>>>> to "Release 1.1". A lot of these should probably be moved back to the
>>>> backlog while UI issues are prioritized for Release 1.1, but we can
>>>> have that debate later :-)
>>>> 
>>>> Was ESME-162 (the mailto issue) resolved? If so, can I mark it as
>>>> fixed? That will be our last issue to close in the ESME 1.0 release
>>>> schedule, though I agree that we should wait a few more days to see if
>>>> anything else comes up.
>>>> 
>>>> Ethan
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Anne Kathrine Petter√łe
>>>> <yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sounds good to me too.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - anne
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8. mars 2010, at 19.48, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why don't we wait a week or two to see if anything else pops up and
>>>>>> then cut a new release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> D.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sound good to me. Looks to me like this last one was revision
918616
>>>>>>> and the mailto issue was revision 917187.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So our release 1.0 would be the snapshot frozen in the 1.0-RC1
tag,
>>>>>>> plus these two changes. Does that sound right to everyone?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Richard Hirsch <
>> hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include the exception that Vassil fixed
- look at
>> the
>>>>>>>> esme-dev mailing list thread "Strange Exception on Streams
Page"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'd say that they shouldn't go in as a rule. There are
always
>>>>>>>>> exceptions, but checking in new changes generally destabilizes
the
>>>>>>>>> release. Based on what I see in Jira, the only code change
I'd
>> like
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> see in 1.0-RC2 or 1.0 would be the mailto fix.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think that with the mailto fix, we could just release
1.0 (not
>>>>>>>>> another RC) at this point and then concentrate on a 1.1
release
>> with
>>>>>>>>> the new UI.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Richard Hirsch <
>>>> hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What about code changes / bug fixes that happened
after the
>> release
>>>>>>>>>> but weren't linked to a particular JIRA item?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> How do we proceed with the 1.0 release. We are now
finding a few
>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>>> but are mostly improvements rather than bug fixes.
When do we cut
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> next RC and when we do declare a real release (1.0).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it OK if I move all open the Jira items out
of Release
>> 1.0-RC2
>>>>>>>>>>> except for ESME-162 (mailto action crashes server)?
I would like
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> move all of these items into Release 1.1 in Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> For the closed items, I think they were mostly
in Release
>> 1.0-RC1,
>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> we should leave them in RC2 in order to get them
into the
>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> notes. However, if there are any closed items
that were fixed
>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the RC1 release, I think we should move them
to release 1.1 as
>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ethan Jewett
<
>> esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dick,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I think only bug fixes should go into
1.0 RCs. Actually, I
>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>> once we get to RC stage, only really bad
bugs (security,
>> crashes)
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> their fixes should go into the RC. All other
bugs should get
>>>> pushed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a subsequent release.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gianugo,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's not orthogonal at all. It's
the original topic
>> of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion ;-) And because of that, let's
focus on topic #1 and
>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I mentioned #2. Though I think it's
a valid concern, I
>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>> that if the mentors don't understand the
concern, I must be
>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gianugo
Rabellino
>>>>>>>>>>>> <g.rabellino@sourcesense.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ethan
Jewett <
>> esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only have two things to add here
(assuming that this is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a release within Apache):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. My original concern: I think that
nearly all the changes
>> in
>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are assigned to Release-1.0-RC2
should be moved to
>>>> something else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called Release-1.1. We already agreed
on a locked scope for
>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 and I don't think we should add
anything to 1.0 release
>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside from things we have agreed
are blocking bugs. ESME-162
>>>> (mailto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions crash the server) is probably
an example of something
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should stay in Release-1.0-RC2. ESME-100
(finish Web UI) is
>> an
>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of something that should *not* stay
in Release-1.0-RC2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a valid concern, although orthogonal
to the discussion
>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still, yes, I would agree RCs should
not contain any new
>> features
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they might introduce bugs or regressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not to pick on our mentors, but
this definition doesn't
>> make
>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense to me. It is aligned with the
official Apache release
>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
but we've
>> just
>>>> moved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question from the definition
of "release" to the
>> definition
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the act of publishing it beyond
the ESME group of developers
>>>> (this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list)". If this is the definition
of an Apache
>> release,
>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the publicly accessible SVN repository
is a release. I have a
>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time believing that if I do an export
from the ESME SVN repo
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upload it to my people.apache.org
page to facilitate testing
>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes a significantly different
action from sending
>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on exporting the SVN
repo themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Richard pointed out, the real difference
between "do an svn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkout -r xxx" and "grab this tarball
we just released" is
>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming from a community blessing by means
of a vote. It's not
>>>> peanuts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it makes all the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that we work with a narrower
definition. Something
>>>> like "a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signed tarball published to
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/esme/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and advertised on the public ESME
website and/or the public
>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list is a release".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're more than welcome to argue your
case, as no ASF
>> procedure
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carved in stone, but know that you should
make sure you place
>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> soapbox on front of the right audience
- this is not the place
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss what the ASF, as a whole, considers
a release to be -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general@incubator might be a better starting
point. Until the
>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition stands, so does the current
process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gianugo Rabellino
>>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source:
>>>> http://www.sourcesense.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message