Sounds good to me too. - anne
On 8. mars 2010, at 19.48, Richard Hirsch wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
