esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Hirsch <>
Subject Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:07:18 GMT
I'd also like to include the exception that Vassil fixed - look at the
esme-dev mailing list thread "Strange Exception on Streams Page"


On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ethan Jewett <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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