incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yoji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:06:45 GMT
Well you being Mr. BPX and all...it is extremely funny to hear you say:
"I can't wait to try them out" in reference to Maven features ROFL


On 11. mars 2010, at 16.04, Richard Hirsch wrote:

> ROFL - I was going to write exactly that but I thought "man - that is really
> embarrassing - I'd better not write that"
> 
> D.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> <yojibee@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> You are sooooooooo turning into a geek :->
>> 
>> 
>> On 11. mars 2010, at 16.00, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>> 
>>> I've discovered a bunch of cool features in maven to help in cutting
>>> releases. I can't wait to try them out.
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ok, I've set the issue to "Fixed". The Release 1.0-RC2 roadmap now
>>>> looks nice and green :-)  -
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>>> 
>>>> Ethan
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> This is closed
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've moved all open Jira issues except ESME-162 from "Release 1.0-RC2"
>>>>>> to "Release 1.1". A lot of these should probably be moved back to
the
>>>>>> backlog while UI issues are prioritized for Release 1.1, but we can
>>>>>> have that debate later :-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Was ESME-162 (the mailto issue) resolved? If so, can I mark it as
>>>>>> fixed? That will be our last issue to close in the ESME 1.0 release
>>>>>> schedule, though I agree that we should wait a few more days to see
if
>>>>>> anything else comes up.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>>>>>> <yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sounds good to me too.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - anne
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 8. mars 2010, at 19.48, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why don't we wait a week or two to see if anything else pops
up and
>>>>>>>> then cut a new release.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sound good to me. Looks to me like this last one was
revision
>> 918616
>>>>>>>>> and the mailto issue was revision 917187.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So our release 1.0 would be the snapshot frozen in the
1.0-RC1 tag,
>>>>>>>>> plus these two changes. Does that sound right to everyone?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Richard Hirsch <
>>>> hirsch.dick@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include the exception that Vassil
fixed - look at
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> esme-dev mailing list thread "Strange Exception on
Streams Page"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd say that they shouldn't go in as a rule.
There are always
>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions, but checking in new changes generally
destabilizes
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> release. Based on what I see in Jira, the only
code change I'd
>>>> like
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> see in 1.0-RC2 or 1.0 would be the mailto fix.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that with the mailto fix, we could just
release 1.0 (not
>>>>>>>>>>> another RC) at this point and then concentrate
on a 1.1 release
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the new UI.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Richard Hirsch
<
>>>>>> hirsch.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> What about code changes / bug fixes that
happened after the
>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> but weren't linked to a particular JIRA item?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we proceed with the 1.0 release. We
are now finding a few
>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>>>>> but are mostly improvements rather than bug
fixes. When do we
>> cut
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> next RC and when we do declare a real release
(1.0).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ethan Jewett
<
>> esjewett@gmail.com
>>>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it OK if I move all open the Jira
items out of Release
>>>> 1.0-RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> except for ESME-162 (mailto action crashes
server)? I would
>> like
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> move all of these items into Release
1.1 in Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the closed items, I think they were
mostly in Release
>>>> 1.0-RC1,
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should leave them in RC2 in order
to get them into the
>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notes. However, if there are any closed
items that were fixed
>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RC1 release, I think we should move
them to release 1.1 as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ethan
Jewett <
>>>> esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dick,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I think only bug fixes should
go into 1.0 RCs. Actually,
>> I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once we get to RC stage, only really
bad bugs (security,
>>>> crashes)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their fixes should go into the RC.
All other bugs should get
>>>>>> pushed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a subsequent release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gianugo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's not orthogonal at
all. It's the original topic
>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion ;-) And because of that,
let's focus on topic #1
>> and
>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I mentioned #2. Though I think
it's a valid concern, I
>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if the mentors don't understand
the concern, I must be
>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:00 AM,
Gianugo Rabellino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <g.rabellino@sourcesense.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM,
Ethan Jewett <
>>>> esjewett@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only have two things to
add here (assuming that this is
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a release within
Apache):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. My original concern: I
think that nearly all the changes
>>>> in
>>>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are assigned to Release-1.0-RC2
should be moved to
>>>>>> something else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called Release-1.1. We already
agreed on a locked scope for
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 and I don't think we
should add anything to 1.0 release
>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside from things we have
agreed are blocking bugs. ESME-162
>>>>>> (mailto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions crash the server)
is probably an example of
>> something
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should stay in Release-1.0-RC2.
ESME-100 (finish Web UI) is
>>>> an
>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of something that should
*not* stay in Release-1.0-RC2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a valid concern, although
orthogonal to the
>> discussion
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still, yes, I would agree RCs
should not contain any new
>>>> features
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they might introduce bugs or
regressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not to pick on our mentors,
but this definition doesn't
>>>> make
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense to me. It is aligned
with the official Apache release
>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
but we've
>>>> just
>>>>>> moved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question from the definition
of "release" to the
>>>> definition
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the act of publishing it
beyond the ESME group of
>> developers
>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list)". If this is
the definition of an Apache
>>>> release,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the publicly accessible SVN
repository is a release. I have
>> a
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time believing that if I
do an export from the ESME SVN repo
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upload it to my people.apache.org
page to facilitate
>> testing
>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes a significantly
different action from sending
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on exporting
the SVN repo themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Richard pointed out, the real
difference between "do an
>> svn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkout -r xxx" and "grab this
tarball we just released" is
>>>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming from a community blessing
by means of a vote. It's not
>>>>>> peanuts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it makes all the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that we work with
a narrower definition. Something
>>>>>> like "a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signed tarball published
to
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/esme/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and advertised on the public
ESME website and/or the public
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list is a release".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're more than welcome to argue
your case, as no ASF
>>>> procedure
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carved in stone, but know that
you should make sure you place
>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soapbox on front of the right
audience - this is not the
>> place
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss what the ASF, as a whole,
considers a release to be -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general@incubator might be a
better starting point. Until
>> the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition stands, so does the
current process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gianugo Rabellino
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389
44 26 846
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sourcesense - making sense of
Open Source:
>>>>>> http://www.sourcesense.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message