river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release River 2.2.0
Date Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:01:04 GMT
I'm going to have limited e-mail access (iPhone only) for the next few 
hours.

If our incubator space is about to go away, maybe we should shove this 
one out the door, for the sake of the better binaries and having a top 
level release, and then produce 2.2.1 ASAP to clean up the loose ends.

Patricia


On 6/30/2011 6:54 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> The build is clean if the classes are removed. At least one QA test
> fails. That is why I suggested as an alternative fix removing the two
> classes and skipping the failing test.
>
> Patricia
>
>
> On 6/30/2011 6:32 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>> Would modifying the build instructions help? And also raising a Jira
>> to fix
>> later.
>>
>> I'm keen to get this release out, obviously. But like you say, bad first
>> impressions do leave a lingering bad feel.
>>
>> how does the build fail with the removed classes?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging via
>> mobile device.
>>
>> On 30 Jun 2011 14:12, "Patricia Shanahan"<pats@acm.org> wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2011 1:42 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>> On 30-06-11 10:12, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>>>> Actually, lets have a proper vote thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Release the artifacts 2.2.0 which can be found in
>>>>> http://river.apache.org/~thobbs/river?
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Peter Firmstone
>>>>> +1 Tom Hobbs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging
>>>>> via
>>>>> mobile device.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 release early, release often!
>>>>
>>>
>>> -0
>>>
>>> I don't like releasing with source code that does not compile following
>>> the build instructions in the release. It creates a bad first impression
>>> for anyone interested in the source code. I would like to see the build
>>> instructions updated, NameServiceImpl changed to be 1.5 compatible, and
>>> have an opportunity to test the new build instructions.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the release does get better code into the hands of
>>> people who are only interested in the binary.
>>>
>>> I realize my negative vote is only symbolic. Three positive votes are
>>> enough to permit a release to go out.
>>>
>>> Patricia
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message