I started working on LICENSE issues. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:55 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 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 > >
