>-----Original Message----- >From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:29 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected]; Ross Gardler; Sylvain Wallez; Upayavira >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate > >On 12/06/2011 03:54 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >> On 12/06/2011 02:49 PM, Ciancetta, Jesse E. wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> I'm now unsure if I should vote +1 or -1 on this release. >>>> >>>> From a release process POV, disregarding execution, this release >candidate >>>> seems valid to me. >>>> But I personally cannot use this release, nor the current trunk for that >matter. >>>> So, to me this feels like a -1 on usability. >>> >>> I think since the problem really comes down to a configuration issue vs. a >>> code issue, then as long as we document the issue and how to work >around it >>> then IMO we could proceed with the release. >> Agree, like I also said on my other response to Matt's email. >> >> One workaround I just tested successfully is the following (*only* needed >> if/when you hit the initialization order bug): >> >> 0) $ rm /tmp/rave* >> 1) before starting tomcat for the first time, temporarily remove >> $TOMCAT/webapps/ROOT.war >> 2) start Tomcat for the first time and once started, stop it again >> 3) move ROOT.war back under $TOMCAT/webapps/ >> 4) now you can start up tomcat as often again. >> Until you want to reset the database again, then rewind back to step 0) >> >> If everyone agrees this is an acceptable workaround, for this release >candidate >> only, and properly documented in the README, I'm OK voting +1 on >candidate.
Sounds fair to me, though editing the Readme would entail repacking the binaries. Is that acceptable, or should we just note it on the download page? > >BTW: I think it would be good and wise to have backing of this, and the release >candidate as a whole, from at least two other Rave mentors as well. >We can postpone and wait on that when promoting the vote to >general@incubator, >but I'd prefer have their backing upfront :) Agreed, I planned on keeping the vote open until we got the votes. General@ is swamped and we may not get the votes we need until after the 0.7-incubating release :) > >So, @Hadrian, @Ross, @Sylvain, @Upayavira, all extra notified on the cc: >if you have time, please review this release candidate as well as this >discussion around it! > > >> >> Ate >> >>> >>> Or stated another way -- I don't see any reason why other projects that >have >>> been building on Rave should have to miss out on this release due to a >>> configuration problem which probably wouldn't even affect them (or if it >did, >>> with proper documentation of known issues for the release, could be >easily >>> worked around). >>> >>>> Just to be clear: regardless my vote, if you get a majority and +3 IPMC >votes >>>> this release can be regarded successfully. >>>> >>>> Ate >>
