incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ethan Jewett <esjew...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:29:47 GMT
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