It's not a commit war. I rescind my request to go away from rtc. I will work to see what we can escalate on the known issues.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 19:04 Sidney Markowitz <sid...@sidney.com> wrote: > This is wrong, from the point of view of proper process. > > I'm glad you are accepting "fault", Kevin, "for not being more > communicative", but the process is that we have issues that are opened > in Bugzilla, work on them is coordinated in the comments of those > issues, issues that we decide to include in the 4.0 release are marked > with a "4.0" milestone, issues that we decide can be done after the 4.0 > release are assigned a "Future" milestone, and we know when we are ready > to release when all issues with a 4.0 milestone have been closed. > > I don't care about being or nor being "communicative". How can anyone on > the team be working on an issue and allow the issue to be closed without > ever making a comment in Bugzilla and especially without reopening the > issue when they see it closed? > > This is not even a discussion that should be ongoing in this mailing > list, other than perhaps a single email saying "Whoops, too soon for a > release candidate, I have (re-)opened bug(s) #X and #Y that need more > work, look at them for details." > > Please properly put whatever technical reasons we have to not proceed > with the release in the correct Bugzilla issues. > > This has only reinforced the decision to go R-T-C: I certainly don't > want to see this turn into a commit war between everything that Henrik > has done in the past days vs an entire independent set of patches > completed in the dark in parallel. We can hash it out in Bugzilla > comments where it belongs. > > Sidney > > > Kevin A. McGrail wrote on 1/05/22 4:39 am: > > The switch to making sure that the patches were without any issues led to > > significant delays. > > > > To my knowledge there is nobody testing the code in any live production > > systems. I expect we will find bugs because of that. > > > > As I said the fault is mine for not being more communicative. But yes > right > > now we have patches doing the same things in different ways with > different > > issues and they need to be reconciled. > > > > Appreciate all your help on them. We'll get it done and hopefully I'm > wrong > > with the bugs and gaps being minimal. > > > > Regards,. KAM > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 12:16 Henrik K <h...@hege.li> wrote: > > > >> > >> Why are you expecting massive issues? I completed all the WLBL work in > few > >> days in meticulous detail, there's extensive tests and many people > tested > >> it. I think there was about one alias that was missing which Giovanni > >> noticed (cheers). > >> > >> I would have rather not participated, but as you went silent for year or > >> two, why would anyone expect there's some pending diffs. > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:03:55PM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >>> Well it was out fault for working on diffs and not giving visibility. > >> Others > >>> then did work on some of the same bugs in a new branch. > >>> > >>> We are reconciling it against the same work others did on the WLBL, for > >>> example. And I expect with RC1 to find some pretty massive issues > there > >> since > >>> I don't think anybody is using all the code there. > >>> > >>> We also found some issues with sigonly in the original version and in > >> other > >>> patches too. > >>> > >>> So we're working on bugs and reconciliation between two different > >> people's code > >>> fixing the same bugs. Not easy. > >>> > >>> Hope that clears things up and why I don't think RTC is useful for RC1 > >> because > >>> I don't think it has any chance of becoming a full release. > >>> > >>> Regards, KAM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 10:58 Henrik K <[1]h...@hege.li> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Wtf? If you or someone have "giant diffs" or work being done, > then > >> post > >>> them on the appropriate bugs, reopening if necessary. I don't > >> understand > >>> why even waste time posting something vague like this. > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 09:50:15AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >>> > Should we delay RTC? I know there are some bugs being worked on > in > >> some > >>> of the > >>> > bugs that have been closed. I also know there's some patches > that > >>> Giovanni > >>> > might or might not have gotten to for the WLBL. We had a giant > >> diff for > >>> that > >>> > was collided. > >>> > > >>> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 05:55 Axb <[1][2]axb.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Doh! Henrik already did it. > >>> > Thanks! > >>> > > >>> > On 4/30/22 11:52, Axb wrote: > >>> > > Should we update [2][3]20_aux_tlds.cf for this relesase? > >>> > > > >>> > > I can't do it at the moment - any taker? > >>> > > > >>> > > On 4/30/22 11:27, Sidney Markowitz wrote: > >>> > >> It's time for a code freeze in preparation for the > release > >> of > >>> 4.0.0 > >>> > >> release candidates. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Please do not commit anything to trunk other than the > usual > >>> ongoing > >>> > >> rules stuff that finds its way into the rule update > process. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Any new bug fixes that need to be committed for 4.0.0 > >> should be > >>> > >> associated with a bug opened with a 4.0 milestone and get > >> reviewed > >>> > >> before committed. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Please hold off on committing for any issue that is not > >> marked as > >>> 4.0 > >>> > >> milestone. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Thanks, > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Sidney > >>> > >> > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > References: > >>> > > >>> > [1] mailto:[4]axb.li...@gmail.com > >>> > [2] [5]http://20_aux_tlds.cf/ > >>> > >>> > >>> References: > >>> > >>> [1] mailto:h...@hege.li > >>> [2] mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com > >>> [3] http://20_aux_tlds.cf/ > >>> [4] mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com > >>> [5] http://20_aux_tlds.cf/ > >> > > > >
