Is it OK if I move all open the Jira items out of Release 1.0-RC2 except for ESME-162 (mailto action crashes server)? I would like to move all of these items into Release 1.1 in Jira.
For the closed items, I think they were mostly in Release 1.0-RC1, so we should leave them in RC2 in order to get them into the release notes. However, if there are any closed items that were fixed after the RC1 release, I think we should move them to release 1.1 as well. Ethan On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Dick, > > Yes, I think only bug fixes should go into 1.0 RCs. Actually, I think > once we get to RC stage, only really bad bugs (security, crashes) and > their fixes should go into the RC. All other bugs should get pushed to > a subsequent release. > > Gianugo, > > Actually, it's not orthogonal at all. It's the original topic of the > discussion ;-) And because of that, let's focus on topic #1 and forget > that I mentioned #2. Though I think it's a valid concern, I recognize > that if the mentors don't understand the concern, I must be missing > something. > > Ethan > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gianugo Rabellino > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I only have two things to add here (assuming that this is the >>> definition of a release within Apache): >>> >>> 1. My original concern: I think that nearly all the changes in JIRA >>> that are assigned to Release-1.0-RC2 should be moved to something else >>> called Release-1.1. We already agreed on a locked scope for release >>> 1.0 and I don't think we should add anything to 1.0 release candidates >>> aside from things we have agreed are blocking bugs. ESME-162 (mailto >>> actions crash the server) is probably an example of something that >>> should stay in Release-1.0-RC2. ESME-100 (finish Web UI) is an example >>> of something that should *not* stay in Release-1.0-RC2. >> >> This is a valid concern, although orthogonal to the discussion here. >> Still, yes, I would agree RCs should not contain any new features as >> they might introduce bugs or regressions. >> >>> 2. Not to pick on our mentors, but this definition doesn't make any >>> sense to me. It is aligned with the official Apache release definition >>> at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what but we've just moved >>> the question from the definition of "release" to the definition of >>> "the act of publishing it beyond the ESME group of developers (this >>> mailing list)". If this is the definition of an Apache release, then >>> the publicly accessible SVN repository is a release. I have a hard >>> time believing that if I do an export from the ESME SVN repo and >>> upload it to my people.apache.org page to facilitate testing that this >>> constitutes a significantly different action from sending someone >>> instructions on exporting the SVN repo themselves. >> >> As Richard pointed out, the real difference between "do an svn >> checkout -r xxx" and "grab this tarball we just released" is consensus >> coming from a community blessing by means of a vote. It's not peanuts, >> it makes all the difference. >> >>> I suggest that we work with a narrower definition. Something like "a >>> signed tarball published to http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/esme/ >>> and advertised on the public ESME website and/or the public mailing >>> list is a release". >> >> You're more than welcome to argue your case, as no ASF procedure is >> carved in stone, but know that you should make sure you place your >> soapbox on front of the right audience - this is not the place to >> discuss what the ASF, as a whole, considers a release to be - >> gene...@incubator might be a better starting point. Until the current >> definition stands, so does the current process. >> >> -- >> Gianugo Rabellino >> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 >> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com >> >
