geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: 1.9 release date
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2019 00:33:34 GMT
Definitely makes sense to have some soak time, as it appears we just reached “code complete”
this morning.

I would love to see the automated tests in the release pipeline run at least once a day for
a couple weeks to help surface any new issues from the recent flurry of changes.  If no one
objects, I will go ahead and add a “daily” trigger to that pipeline.

-Owen

> On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Jason Huynh <jhuynh@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> To Alexander's point, I'm use the latest geode snapshot and am seeing an
> issue that looks similar to (if not the same as) GEODE-3780 (but this one
> is closed).
> I'd like to explore this a bit more and decide if that should be reopened
> but I am not sure if it's not an issue important enough to wait for.
> 
> I think some soak time would be nice but I can understand that it's not a
> clear criteria.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:57 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I started working on LICENSE issues.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:55 PM Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> 
>>> I’ll point out that the license issue I mentioned earlier this week isn’t
>>> resolved.  And that we’re bundling potentially incompatible Jackson jars.
>>> 
>>> Anthony
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Alexander Murmann <ajmurmann@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Clear quality metrics is definitely great. However, we've also seen in
>>> the
>>>> past that we sometimes find new issues by continue work on the code and
>>>> some folks starting to use them on their own projects. For that
>> reason, I
>>>> think it might be wise to give ourselves some extra time to run into
>>> issues
>>>> organically. Maybe we don't need that as our coverage improves.
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Owen Nichols <onichols@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The release criteria of “based on meeting quality goals” sounds great.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What are those quality goals exactly, and can we objectively measure
>>>>> progress against them?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It looks like we already have a number of well-defined quality goals
>> in
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+process <
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+process>
>>>>> Presuming this is up-to-date, we need to satisfy 8 required quality
>>> goals
>>>>> before we can release.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thus far, we have not met the goal "Build is successful including
>>>>> automated tests”.
>>>>> To meet it, is one “all green" run in the release pipeline <
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-release-1-9-0-main?groups=complete
>>>> 
>>>>> sufficient?  Or should we require 2 or 3 “all green” runs on the
same
>>> SHA?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do Windows tests count toward “all green”?  Currently they are not
in
>>> the
>>>>> default view (same as 1.8.0).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Geode release process document above also lists an additional 11
>>>>> quality goals as “optional.”  I assume these are meant as suggestions
>>> the
>>>>> community may wish to consider when voting on a release?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If anyone feels the existing release process documentation does not
>>>>> adequately define what quality goals must be met in order to release,
>>> let’s
>>>>> discuss (and get those docs updated!)
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IMHO we start release work based on a quarterly schedule and we
>> finish
>>>>> it based on meeting quality goals.  So right now I’m less worried
>> about
>>>>> when the release will be done (because uncertainty) and more focused
>> on
>>>>> ensuring we have demonstrated stability on the release branch.
>>> Hopefully
>>>>> that will happen sooner than 4/1…but it could take longer too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurmann@apache.org
>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> According to our wiki we were aiming for a March 1st release
date
>> for
>>>>> our
>>>>>>> 1.9 release. We cut the release branch about two weeks late and
see
>>>>> unusual
>>>>>>> amounts of merges still going into the branch. I propose that
we
>> give
>>>>>>> ourselves some more time to validate what's there. My proposal
is to
>>> aim
>>>>>>> for last week of March or maybe even week of April 1st.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do you all think?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Alexander J. Murmann
>>>> (650) 283-1933
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message