>-----Original Message----- >From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:46 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate > >On 04/06/2012 10:41 AM, Ate Douma wrote: >> I've got two remarks so far: >> >> a) This release candidate is dependent on the non-yet released rave- >master-0.10, >> which I don't like much. >> >> IMO it would have been better to wait another day until the rave-master >was >> formally released. Although the rave-master release most certainly will >> commence, in theory if we find a last minute blocker issue with it causing >> its >> release to be failed, it would cause *this* release candidate then to fail >> automatically as well... >> >> b) Issue RAVE-553 just reported by Jasha and also confirmed by myself >makes the >> release useless for all practical use-cases and most certainly should have >been >> easily tested/found before the release. We should look into improving our >> quality assurance and add some minimal but sensible (interaction) testing >plan >> which should pass before we cut a release candidate because this is quite >annoying. >> >> For b) I'm inclined to vote -1 or at least -0. As I haven't had time to >> further >> review I'll postpone casting my vote for now but it doesn't look rosy to me. > >BTW: just want to make clear, especially for Raminder, I consider b) and the >need for improving on our quality assurance a responsibility of the team, >including myself, not one of the release-manager who but must execute and >ascertain this.
Agreed it is the team's responsibility. Optimally, we had some automated step we could simply execute before releasing; but, UI tests can be very brittle and hard to maintain... > >> >> Ate >> >> >> On 04/06/2012 02:51 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote: >>> This is discussion thread for vote on Apache Rave Project 0.10 Release >Candidate >>> >>> For more information on the release process, checkout - >>> >>> http://rave.apache.org/release-management.html >>> >>> Some of the things to check before voting are: >>> - can you run the demo binaries >>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag >>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE and >>> DISCLAIMER files >>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable >>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server >>> >>> >>> >>
