Agreed. I think one of the top priorities will be to work with Apache INFRA to get some sort of CI environment set up.
- Taylor On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:19 AM, James Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree it’s time to release and the unit test should pass before release. (I > just released that we don’t have Travis CI like many other open source > projects have). > > On 2013年11月27日, at 下午1:15, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It’s been over two months since Storm has entered the Apache incubator. >> >> I think it’s time to release 0.9.0 and move forward with adopting the Apache >> process for releasing, getting IP clearance, etc. >> >> I’ve not seen much feedback from the community on the release candidates, >> but from what I’ve seen 0.9.0-rc3 is pretty solid. >> >> That being said, there are two remaining issues that I think should be >> addressed: >> >> 1. https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/pull/726 >> >> I’ve not seen this reproduced, but I think it is valid and should be >> addressed (see my comments in the pull request). I’m okay if we just >> eliminate the possibility for negative sleep values for now. We can change >> the implementation later to back off in a predictable way. >> >> 2. https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/pull/755 >> >> This is arguably cosmetic, but I feel unit tests should pass for any >> release. (I’d also like to change the release script so it fails if any unit >> tests don’t pass — I can create an issue for that, and take on the work). >> >> I’m open to suggestions to any other pull requests/issues that anyone feels >> should be included. >> >> If there are any critical bugs discovered in 0.9.0, we can always release a >> bug fix release (e.g. 0.9.0.x) outside of Apache. >> >> In a nutshell, I think we need to decide whether we want to fish or cut bait >> in terms of the move to Apache. I don’t want to see Storm stagnate in the >> incubator. >> >> I look forward to hearing others’ thoughts on the matter. >> >> - Taylor >
