incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sig Rinde <...@rinde.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-esme-incubating-1.0 - (Yes Again :->)
Date Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:07:48 GMT
Got a tar file or shall I do the usual svn?

Noticed that the default.props file do not have
"compass_config_file=/props/compass.filesystem.cfg.xml" anymore.
Compass/search etc still working now? :)


On 21 February 2010 18:59, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
> @sig - thanks for finding the bugs - the more bugs found, the higher
> quality of ESME - and then everyone wins.
>
> If you want to get a head start on testing the new RC - just take a
> look here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/tags/apache-esme-1.0-incubating/
>
> I'll do some tests tomorrow during the day and then start a vote in the evening.
>
> D.
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Sig Rinde <sig@rinde.com> wrote:
>> Great work folks, interesting process to follow I must say
>
> I also find it interesting - especially comparing the release process
> in a "community-based" / ASF project to releases in the corporate
> world.
>
>>
>> And sorry for messing up, keep in mind for next time I'm really good
>> at stumbling over bugs, i.e. mess up, so set me to test work early =)
>>
>> Sig
>>
>> On 21 February 2010 17:55, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for humoring my concerns, and again for all the work you're doing Dick.
>>>
>>> I've checked out the new tag and tested it. It passes all unit tests,
>>> search is working out of the box, and the security hole is closed.
>>> From my point of view, we're ready for a vote.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ethan
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> I've tagged a new Release Candidate:
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/tags/apache-esme-1.0-incubating/
>>>>
>>>> This means that we have to vote again (sigh!) -.
>>>>
>>>> This time I suggest we test the tagged RC before we do a vote.
>>>>
>>>> D.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> For the original issue, where doing nothing simply results in a loss
>>>>> of functionality, I would agree. However, I think this is a major
>>>>> security hole that requires that the person deploying the software to
>>>>> take a specific action. If they don't take this action, then their
>>>>> deployment is vulnerable. I'm not comfortable putting the ESME stamp
>>>>> on a release that we know has this kind of issue. I think it's worth
>>>>> spending the extra time to address this issue and set the precedent
>>>>> that we don't release software with known security holes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sticking with my -1 at this point. I'm not trying to veto (I don't
>>>>> even know if I can :-), so if a majority have voted for release after
>>>>> 72 hours (which I think is the case), then feel free to go ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with Bertrand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to get this release out and then do a another release soon
to
>>>>>> fix the errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, there are the two issues that have to be changed and Ethan
>>>>>> has already changed them in SVN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe that this will happen on any system and I think the
fact that search and the API2 doesn't work out of the box will really
>>>>>>>confuse people.
>>>>>> The fact that search doesn't work is IMHO the lesser of the two
>>>>>> errors. Does the API2 not work at all or is the problem more the
>>>>>> security one associated with the "role.api_test=integration-admin"
>>>>>> setting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm reluctant to cut a new release , because then we'd have to start
>>>>>> over again. Like I've said, I see this first release as a learning
>>>>>> experience. No release will be perfect and will always include a
few
>>>>>> bugs. I'd rather get this release out and then do another release
in 2
>>>>>> weeks time with the bug fixes.  Now that we know how to do create
>>>>>> releases it will be easier the next time.  We should get used to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd rather describe the two changes that have to made in the resource
>>>>>> files in a blog post or on the wiki and then push for a new release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone else have thoughts on this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>>>>> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...Maybe making this two-line change to one file is small
enough that we
>>>>>>>> don't have to revote. I'm not sure. Maybe the mentors can
weigh in....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything that changes the release artifacts needs a new vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, if there's a workaround (IIUC people can change
>>>>>>> something manually to get things to work?) I suggest releasing
as is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing prevents you from making another release soon, if needed.
>>>>>>> Getting used to releasing is good progress towards graduation
;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message