I’ll point out that the license issue I mentioned earlier this week isn’t resolved. And that we’re bundling potentially incompatible Jackson jars.
Anthony > On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Alexander Murmann <ajmurm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Clear quality metrics is definitely great. However, we've also seen in the > past that we sometimes find new issues by continue work on the code and > some folks starting to use them on their own projects. For that reason, I > think it might be wise to give ourselves some extra time to run into issues > organically. Maybe we don't need that as our coverage improves. > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> The release criteria of “based on meeting quality goals” sounds great. >> >> What are those quality goals exactly, and can we objectively measure >> progress against them? >> >> It looks like we already have a number of well-defined quality goals in >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+process < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+process> >> Presuming this is up-to-date, we need to satisfy 8 required quality goals >> before we can release. >> >> Thus far, we have not met the goal "Build is successful including >> automated tests”. >> To meet it, is one “all green" run in the release pipeline < >> https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-release-1-9-0-main?groups=complete> >> sufficient? Or should we require 2 or 3 “all green” runs on the same SHA? >> >> Do Windows tests count toward “all green”? Currently they are not in the >> default view (same as 1.8.0). >> >> The Geode release process document above also lists an additional 11 >> quality goals as “optional.” I assume these are meant as suggestions the >> community may wish to consider when voting on a release? >> >> If anyone feels the existing release process documentation does not >> adequately define what quality goals must be met in order to release, let’s >> discuss (and get those docs updated!) >> >> -Owen >> >>> On Mar 1, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> IMHO we start release work based on a quarterly schedule and we finish >> it based on meeting quality goals. So right now I’m less worried about >> when the release will be done (because uncertainty) and more focused on >> ensuring we have demonstrated stability on the release branch. Hopefully >> that will happen sooner than 4/1…but it could take longer too. >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> According to our wiki we were aiming for a March 1st release date for >> our >>>> 1.9 release. We cut the release branch about two weeks late and see >> unusual >>>> amounts of merges still going into the branch. I propose that we give >>>> ourselves some more time to validate what's there. My proposal is to aim >>>> for last week of March or maybe even week of April 1st. >>>> >>>> What do you all think? >>> >> >> > > -- > Alexander J. Murmann > (650) 283-1933
