Cool, thanks :) Can you also describe a bit more in RAVE-541 what the intention of the issue is please?
On 6 April 2012 15:19, Mahadevan, Venkat <[email protected]> wrote: > Jasha, I will work on RAVE-541 and fix the issue > > > > On 4/6/12 6:26 AM, "Jasha Joachimsthal" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >On 6 April 2012 10:46, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > > >If I revert the commit in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-541I > >can create new users again. I don't know what the intention of this > >feature > >was, but the result is that it creates a new PROFILE page instead of a new > >USER page. The portal cannot handle a user without a user page. The portal > >can however render a profile page if no profile page is present yet for > >that user. > > > >We have multiple options: > >0. accept the 0.10 release, but I also doubt between -0 and -1 > >1. reject the 0.10 release, fix or revert the issue, no new release until > >the end of the month > >2. reject the 0.10 release, revert the commit done for RAVE-541 and create > >a new 0.10.1 release after the rave-master pom has been released > >3. reject the 0.10 release, fix the RAVE-541 issue and create a new 0.10.1 > >release after the rave-master pom has been released > > > >For option 2 & 3 we don't want other new features in the 0.10.1 release so > >either > >a. hold all commits until the issue RAVE-541 has been resolved or > >reverted. > >Create a release from trunk (0.11-SNAPSHOT -> 0.10.1 -> 0.11-SNAPSHOT) > >b. create a branch from 0.10 tag (0.10.1-SNAPSHOT), fix or revert > >RAVE-541, > >release from the branch (0.10.1-SNAPSHOT -> 0.10.1 -> 0.10.2-SNAPSHOT). > >Merge the fix into trunk (0.11-SNAPSHOT) > > > >@Venkat (or whoever can fix the issue and knows what the intention was): > >in > >case we want a 0.10.1 release, do you think you can fix this issue soon, > >shall we first revert your commit and give you more time to solve it? > > > >Jasha > > > > > > > >> > >> > >>> 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< > 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
