esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ethan Jewett <>
Subject Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:33:12 GMT
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.


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ethan Jewett <> 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
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ethan Jewett <> 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 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 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
>>> 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:

View raw message