Ok, I've set the issue to "Fixed". The Release 1.0-RC2 roadmap now looks nice and green :-) - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
Ethan On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >
