Hi Geoff,
Yes you are correct. With an extended weekend + ensuing backlog of work at
$DAYJOB, this has been neglected somewhat. I'll get back to it.
Richard.
On 3 May 2017 at 09:30, Geoff Macartney
wrote:
> hi all,
>
> can we just clarify -- I think from the discussion above we concluded the
>
hi all,
can we just clarify -- I think from the discussion above we concluded the
RC2 was blocked, but it might be worth an email confirming that?
If we're going to do an RC3 would it be possible to squeeze
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/662 into it? (As mentioned
here last week.
Sounds good to me
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 21:34 Richard Downer wrote:
> It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
> there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.
>
> In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
> suggest: it's
It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.
In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
suggest: it's a minor feature so would probably not be encountered by many
users. It's a new feat
It has to be a judgment call. I tend to agree this is a blocker.
Best
Alex
On 27 Apr 2017 15:14, "Geoff Macartney"
wrote:
> What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
> don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we create
> some?
>
> My own s
What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we create
some?
My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
should b
+1 Richard,
I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
a release?
On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer wrote:
> Bug BROOKLYN-493[
Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
using WinRmCommandSensor".
Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major issue in
a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
process
Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
(please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
Thanks!
