On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: > > > 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.
Actually there's a better way which we have proposed during the git discussion and explained on http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ : You always perform a release on a branch and this becomes the stabilization branch of the release. Nobody commits on that branch except for helping in stabilizing the branch. Now generally, I'd also be in favor of rolling back commits too whenever a commit breaks a functional test for more than 1 day. Thanks -Vincent > 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
