Just noticed that three of the fixes related to LICENSE and NOTICE files have
been put in 'develop' branch so at the time of the next RC, they'll have to be
cherry-picked into the release ('1.0.0-incubating.M1' branch).
Nitin
________________________________________
From: Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:04 PM
To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Hi Nitin,
Thanks for creating JIRA tickets capturing Niall's concerns/comments
regarding the RC candidate...
(GEODE-815) RC Feedback: Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files
(GEODE-816) Source Distribution NOTICE needs updates
(GEODE-817) Binary distribution NOTICE needs update
(GEODE-818) RC Feedback: Fix Maven & pom dependencies
(GEODE-823) RC Feedback: Fix build artifacts
-Anil.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> Sure. One benefit of defining subtasks is that subtasks have separate
> issue numbers for traceability, and we can track the complete feedback with
> a few JIRAs. Other mechanisms of using labels or explicit issue linking are
> additional steps with some overhead.
>
> Anyway, I've created a new version in JIRA, and created three issues
> capturing Niall's feedback [1]. If I interpret the feedback correctly, only
> the user PoV (pom dependencies) is optional; others are license-related and
> high priority to address.
>
> Best,
> Nitin
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&view=planning
> ________________________________________
> From: Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:56 PM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and
> some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all
> the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time.
> Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around
> next steps.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
> >
> > @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline
> but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on
> the next RC VOTE.
> >
> > @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was
> somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail
> capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
> >
> > @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few
> top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details
> captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
> >
> > Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are
> related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that
> we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch?
> Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: shaposh...@gmail.com <shaposh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman
> Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
> > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to
> cause
> >> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> >> override it somehow?
> >
> > That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
> > so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
>
