rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate
Date Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:29:03 GMT
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:ate@douma.nu]
>> <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.

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 :)

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

View raw message