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: Release 1.0-RC2 in Jira
Date Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:04:23 GMT
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 Petter√łe
<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 Petter√łe
> >>>> <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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message