Hi Lewis, I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed. I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To achieve this, several people have worked hard during the summer. Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with working RCMES is really important. Just my two cents.
Thanks, Kyo On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Kyo, > >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull >> requests under pending now. >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release. >> >> Thanks, >> Kyo >> >> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE. >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015. >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1 >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that 20 >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code >contributions >have arrived during that window. >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical >bug >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of >a >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above. >Does this make sense? >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time >window? >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo. >Thanks >Lewis
