I'd say that they shouldn't go in as a rule. There are always exceptions, but checking in new changes generally destabilizes the release. Based on what I see in Jira, the only code change I'd like to see in 1.0-RC2 or 1.0 would be the mailto fix.
I think that with the mailto fix, we could just release 1.0 (not another RC) at this point and then concentrate on a 1.1 release with the new UI. Ethan On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. > > What about code changes / bug fixes that happened after the release > but weren't linked to a particular JIRA item? > > How do we proceed with the 1.0 release. We are now finding a few bugs > but are mostly improvements rather than bug fixes. When do we cut the > next RC and when we do declare a real release (1.0). > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>> >> >
