On 4/9/12 11:10 AM, "Jasha Joachimsthal" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9 April 2012 15:51, Franklin, Matthew B. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 4/9/12 9:46 AM, "Raminderjeet Singh" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> >As the fix is already part of trunk and we did not create any branch so >> >what should i do to create build. Shall i create a tag 0.10.1 from >>trunk >> >and create the release. As the trunk pom's are already at >>0.11-snaphot, i >> >need to careful not to update them again i release process. >> >> Since the fix is in place in trunk, IMO we no longer need to branch. >>You >> could release 0.10.1 right now out of trunk without any need to change >> poms. Just make sure you set the development version to 0.11-SNAPSHOT >> when prompted by the release plugin... >> > >Should we create a 0.10.1 version in Jira as well? +1 > > >> >> > >> > >> >Thanks >> >Raminder >> > >> > >> >On Apr 9, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: >> > >> >> Tested the portal and it works again. Thanks for fixing it. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6 April 2012 20:37, Mahadevan, Venkat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fixed the issue. Please let me know otherwise. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Venkat >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 4/6/12 9:19 AM, "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-541 >> >>>>> I >> >>>>> 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.or >> >>>>>>>> g >> >>>>>>>> /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 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>
