On 04/28/2011 10:25 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >> >> On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: >> >>> I offered to take over the release since Jerome was unable to do it and >>> right now we have 38 test >>> failures. >>> 16 selenium1 tests, >>> 6 selenium2/ui-tests >>> 16 webstandards tests. >>> >>> We have 3 options: >>> 1. We can release now and accept bugs in the release. >>> 2. We can have volunteers to take over tests and get them passing for >>> tomorrow so tomorrow I can >>> release. >>> 3. We can opt to postpone the release. If I work on these alone I expect it >>> to take about 1 week as >>> long as nobody commits code which introduces further regressions. >>> >>> I don't think postponing the release is wise at this point and #2 is >>> contingent upon volunteers >>> claiming ownership of specific tests so I think #1 is the lesser of the >>> evils. >>> >>> Do I hear any objections/volunteers? >> >> I fear 1 will make a precedent meaning that we'll consider it in the future >> too to do that, meaning that tests will have less and less values. Right now >> they don't seem to have any value since apparently nobody cares about them >> since we keep having issues when doing releases whereas they should just all >> run all the time. Normally when someone commits something and it fails the >> tests, that person must fix the code/test and not wait till the release >> happens. So we need to fix this somehow. Ideas anyone?
If I am the release manager then I will propose a lock period when nobody commits anything except stabilization code for a week. During that time I will sort out what changes broke tests and if the committer is unwilling to fix them then revert their patches. If we need quality then we need a policy with teeth. Caleb >> >> So I'm fine with 1 but only provided it's decided in conjunction with a plan >> to fix the tests as otherwise we'll just have a doubling of failing tests >> for the next 3.1M2 release.... > > Actually what would be good is also to verify manually that the tests are not > real issues because if they are we shouldn't release or if we do release then > it's because we've considered the bugs to be non blocking and they'll need to > be detailed in the release notes as regressions. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> >> More precisely we need to answer: >> * Who's going to fix the currently failing tests? >> * What strategy to put in place so that failing tests don't creep in for >> more than, say, 1 full day? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
