Mailing-List: contact dev-help@systemml.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGU5spdcFCzU3bjSq0yCAfgooTyfqchRraemgqhYn7H3hW6waw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Formalize a release candidate review process?
To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
From: "Frederick R Reiss" <frreiss@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:34:43 -0700
References: <CAO1aQR8cEJBnr5Hr4styJ+ifChY1HUboPsWV+WFF=C321asqhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGU5spdcFCzU3bjSq0yCAfgooTyfqchRraemgqhYn7H3hW6waw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-type: multipart/related;
	Boundary="0__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB"
Message-Id: <20160523165721.C21FB28050@b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com>
archived-at: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:57:30 -0000

--0__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	Boundary="1__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB"


--1__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


+1 here too. A documented release process is a very good idea. Having a
written checklist will make it easier to delegate these tasks to volunteers
who want to help out with the project. It will also build confidence among
potential users, since we can point to exactly what testing has been done
on each release. And any vendors who are thinking of bundling SystemML with
their products will want this documentation to support their own release
processes.

Fred


From:	Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com>
To:	"dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org"
            <dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org>
Date:	05/21/2016 10:38 AM
Subject:	Re: Formalize a release candidate review process?


+1, we should create a web page, about producing a release, where one
section would be how to produce a release candidate, and another session
would be thse items below with a bit more info on how ro execute them...
And then people could claim these or respond to the vote with the things
they have tested.

Btw, for the build ones, we should recommend building with an empty maven
repo.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Deron Eriksson <deroneriksson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It might be nice to formalize what needs to be done when reviewing a
> release candidate. I don't mean this as something that would add
> bureaucracy that would slow us down. Rather, it would be nice to have
> something as simple as a basic checklist of items that we could volunteer
> to check. That way, we could avoid potentially duplicating effort, which
> would speed us up, and we could avoid potentially missing some critical
> checks, which would help validate the integrity of our releases.
>
> Some potential items to check:
> 1) Entire test suite should pass on OS X, Windows, and Linux.
> 2) All artifacts and accompanying checksums are present (see
>
>
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.10.0-incubating=
-rc1/

> )
> 3) All artifacts containing SystemML classes can execute a 'hello world'
> example
> 4) LICENSE and NOTICE files for all the artifacts have been checked
> 5) SystemML runs algorithms locally in standalone single-node
> 5) SystemML runs algorithms on local Hadoop (hadoop jar ...)
> 6) SystemML runs algorithms on local Spark (spark-submit ...)
> 7) SystemML runs algorithms on a Hadoop cluster
> 8) SystemML runs algorithms on a Spark cluster
> 9) SystemML performance suite has been run on a Hadoop cluster
> 10) SystemML performance suite has been run on a Spark cluster
>
> Would this be too many things to check or too few? Are there any critical
> items missing?
>
> Deron
>


--
Sent from my Mobile device


--1__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

<html><body><p>+1 here too. A documented release process is a very good ide=
a. Having a written checklist will make it easier to delegate these tasks t=
o volunteers who want to help out with the project. It will also build conf=
idence among potential users, since we can point to exactly what testing ha=
s been done on each release. And any vendors who are thinking of bundling S=
ystemML with their products will want this documentation to support their o=
wn release processes.<br><br>Fred<br><br><img width=3D"16" height=3D"16" sr=
c=3D"cid:1=5F=5F=3D07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07B@" border=3D"0" a=
lt=3D"Inactive hide details for Luciano Resende ---05/21/2016 10:38:05 AM--=
-+1, we should create a web page, about producing a releas"><font color=3D"=
#424282">Luciano Resende ---05/21/2016 10:38:05 AM---+1, we should create a=
 web page, about producing a release, where one section would be how to pro=
duc</font><br><br><font size=3D"2" color=3D"#5F5F5F">From:        </font><f=
ont size=3D"2">Luciano Resende &lt;luckbr1975@gmail.com&gt;</font><br><font=
 size=3D"2" color=3D"#5F5F5F">To:        </font><font size=3D"2">&quot;dev@=
systemml.incubator.apache.org&quot; &lt;dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org&g=
t;</font><br><font size=3D"2" color=3D"#5F5F5F">Date:        </font><font s=
ize=3D"2">05/21/2016 10:38 AM</font><br><font size=3D"2" color=3D"#5F5F5F">=
Subject:        </font><font size=3D"2">Re: Formalize a release candidate r=
eview process?</font><br><hr width=3D"100%" size=3D"2" align=3D"left" nosha=
de style=3D"color:#8091A5; "><br><br><br><tt>+1, we should create a web pag=
e, about producing a release, where one<br>section would be how to produce =
a release candidate, and another session<br>would be thse items below with =
a bit more info on how ro execute them...<br>And then people could claim th=
ese or respond to the vote with the things<br>they have tested.<br><br>Btw,=
 for the build ones, we should recommend building with an empty maven<br>re=
po.<br><br>On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Deron Eriksson &lt;deroneriksson@gmai=
l.com&gt; wrote:<br><br>&gt; Hi,<br>&gt;<br>&gt; It might be nice to formal=
ize what needs to be done when reviewing a<br>&gt; release candidate. I don=
't mean this as something that would add<br>&gt; bureaucracy that would slo=
w us down. Rather, it would be nice to have<br>&gt; something as simple as =
a basic checklist of items that we could volunteer<br>&gt; to check. That w=
ay, we could avoid potentially duplicating effort, which<br>&gt; would spee=
d us up, and we could avoid potentially missing some critical<br>&gt; check=
s, which would help validate the integrity of our releases.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=
 Some potential items to check:<br>&gt; 1) Entire test suite should pass on=
 OS X, Windows, and Linux.<br>&gt; 2) All artifacts and accompanying checks=
ums are present (see<br>&gt;<br>&gt; </tt><tt><a href=3D"https://dist.apach=
e.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.10.0-incubating-rc1/">https://dis=
t.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.10.0-incubating-rc1/</a></=
tt><tt><br>&gt; )<br>&gt; 3) All artifacts containing SystemML classes can =
execute a 'hello world'<br>&gt; example<br>&gt; 4) LICENSE and NOTICE files=
 for all the artifacts have been checked<br>&gt; 5) SystemML runs algorithm=
s locally in standalone single-node<br>&gt; 5) SystemML runs algorithms on =
local Hadoop (hadoop jar ...)<br>&gt; 6) SystemML runs algorithms on local =
Spark (spark-submit ...)<br>&gt; 7) SystemML runs algorithms on a Hadoop cl=
uster<br>&gt; 8) SystemML runs algorithms on a Spark cluster<br>&gt; 9) Sys=
temML performance suite has been run on a Hadoop cluster<br>&gt; 10) System=
ML performance suite has been run on a Spark cluster<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Would =
this be too many things to check or too few? Are there any critical<br>&gt;=
 items missing?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Deron<br>&gt;<br><br><br>-- <br>Sent from m=
y Mobile device<br></tt><br><br><BR>
</body></html>

--1__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB--


--0__=07BBF52FDFC955CB8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBF52FDFC955CB--