harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [result] [vote] Declare r917296 as 6.0 Milestone 1
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:15:46 GMT
Just back from a week's vacation and catching up on this thread...

On 09/03/2010 13:58, Tim Ellison wrote:
> Sorry for coming late to this thread, I hope I've caught up on the
> progress made so far, and let me start by saying "thanks" for addressing
> these single-handedly!
>
> On 09/Mar/2010 10:16, Mark Hindess wrote:
>    
>> <SNIP>
>>>>          
>>>>>> The NOTICE year is rather annoying though.  What do other people
>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>              
>>>> ?
>>>>          
>> I'd still *really* like the opinions of the others who voted and Harmony
>> PMC members.  Do you think this should block the already-voted-for
>> release?
>>      
> No.  I don't see which of these would invalidate the release we already
> voted.  I appreciate sebb's review and comments.  It would have been
> good to hear them during the two week freeze leading up to the vote
> rather than after the vote was concluded :-)
>
> The comments are in the most part valid (order of entries in a JAR is a
> bit extreme IMHO), and the most important are probably missing standard
> headers.  Even so, these are informational and do not alter the status
> of the code in the release, so it is correct to fix them so we are in
> adherence of the foundation policy, but they should not block 6.0M1.
>    

+1. It's great that Sebb has raised these issues, but I don't think they 
are blockers for the M1 we have already voted on. I vote for fixing them 
in the M2 release and going ahead with M1 as is (although I do agree, 
the incorrect year in the notice file is annoying).

Were all the errors listed in this thread detected by the RAT tool? 
Would it be possible to automate this tool as part of our Hudson builds 
so we find out about issues as soon as they are introduced?

Regards,
Oliver

>    
>> I think stopping an already-voted-for release sets a bad precedent
>> Testing should happen before/during the vote and if more time is
>> required then people should ask (as Tim did).  However, also I want to
>> make a good release.
>>      
> We all do, and again, all constructive comments are welcome.  Each
> release has known issues, there is a call to make on what should block
> us making progress.
>
>    
>> I will *not* be making this decision one way or another until I get some
>> indication of the opinions of others who voted.
>>      
> My opinion is release 6.0M1 as originally voted.  Fix these issues in
> the open stream and thank contributors for making M2 so much better.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>    

-- 
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


Mime
View raw message