geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: 1.9 release date
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2019 23:55:47 GMT
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