I'd also like to include the exception that Vassil fixed - look at the esme-dev mailing list thread "Strange Exception on Streams Page"
D. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
