Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hirsch.dick@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.212 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=pRJoDFjyzyG4P8dAowFTps1Nv8PsXxQvM54dm+V4NmZJETKWPdD4a7JVNDFmP6uUUI
         sdwsWeE6aPbtgruYCV7ON9EP1wyv0tfn4ysnV4/ks8rROlODcCYf+IbX3lYZ0niw++Ms
         k24MkBoXUUYRWnQFuMFYruo+5YAVC6FLJac5s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <68f4a0e81003080928u6507dcedle823b9ad67a0e62a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fa2d9f451002232054v4d2beb6aha1be78513b86de87@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f767f0601003020319j204c9952tbc71ef26f367c0e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e81003020628s1bb694bbr63a1383f67153957@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3d89f1771003020700n90bbbc7j802a76dbd111c397@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e81003020731l2a98c0e1o18e99d77d0913e25@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e81003070933i680af8b8y28089dbc230b2376@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f451003072343n5ffac612y94c0682aef4ec7b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e81003080829j65c1e335m4222fe035a3b8516@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f451003080907v4cd9837an3eefd411ae42a90c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e81003080928u6507dcedle823b9ad67a0e62a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:48:14 +0100
Message-ID: <fa2d9f451003081048q146cb8fep94e7177d1aeeb540@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
From: Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>