This is closed On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've moved all open Jira issues except ESME-162 from "Release 1.0-RC2" > to "Release 1.1". A lot of these should probably be moved back to the > backlog while UI issues are prioritized for Release 1.1, but we can > have that debate later :-) > > Was ESME-162 (the mailto issue) resolved? If so, can I mark it as > fixed? That will be our last issue to close in the ESME 1.0 release > schedule, though I agree that we should wait a few more days to see if > anything else comes up. > > Ethan > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > >
