incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Hirsch <hirsch.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-esme-incubating-1.0 - (Yes Again :->)
Date Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:59:32 GMT
@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