+1 for skipping flakyTest on release branch and merging 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release > branch. It contains only test changes. Sound reasonable? > > Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the > Jenkins release job [1]. That would give us a clearer picture of test > results and quality on the release branch. > > We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job. > > Anthony > > [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/ > > > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the offer Anthony, > > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0 > tag > > from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be > accurate. > > > > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit > > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please > make > > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you > are > > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching > > to the new branch. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating% > > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wmark...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) > >> so > >>> we > >>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing > it. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Kirk > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate > >>> the > >>>>>> release branch from ongoing development. For past releases we have > >>>>> waited > >>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead. Perhaps > >>> this > >>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas > >>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2]. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for > 1.0.0 > >>> but > >>>>>> the Fix Version is not set > >>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix > >>>>> Version > >>>>>> is set to 1.0.0 > >>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for > >> 1.0.0? > >>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anthony > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > >>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating% > >>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > >>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode- > >>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_ > >>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@ > >>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org > >>>>> <javascript:;>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode > >> 1.0? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows > >>>>> folks > >>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without > >>>>>> destabilizing > >>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would > >> go > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> the 1.0 branch? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Kirk > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> ~/William > >> > >
