Sounds good to me. Why don't we wait a week or two to see if anything else pops up and then cut a new release.
D. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Sound good to me. Looks to me like this last one was revision 918616 > and the mailto issue was revision 917187. > > So our release 1.0 would be the snapshot frozen in the 1.0-RC1 tag, > plus these two changes. Does that sound right to everyone? > > Thanks, > Ethan > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
