The daily trigger was inadvertently lost when the 1.9.0 release branch was re-cut. I’ve just restored it.
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Definitely makes sense to have some soak time, as it appears we just reached > “code complete” this morning. > > I would love to see the automated tests in the release pipeline run at least > once a day for a couple weeks to help surface any new issues from the recent > flurry of changes. If no one objects, I will go ahead and add a “daily” > trigger to that pipeline. > > -Owen > >> On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> To Alexander's point, I'm use the latest geode snapshot and am seeing an >> issue that looks similar to (if not the same as) GEODE-3780 (but this one >> is closed). >> I'd like to explore this a bit more and decide if that should be reopened >> but I am not sure if it's not an issue important enough to wait for. >> >> I think some soak time would be nice but I can understand that it's not a >> clear criteria. >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:57 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >
