rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Franklin, Matthew B." <mfrank...@mitre.org>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:39:41 GMT
I haven't reviewed the release, but I agree that we should push forward with the known issue.
I would also like to see if this is an issue in earlier releases.






-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Geer [chris@cxtsoftware.com<mailto:chris@cxtsoftware.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 08:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: dev@rave.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:

> I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking
> (RAVE-838).
> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend associations
> now works.
>
> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a
> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared pages
> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
>
> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already
> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly
> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an
> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade
> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed.
> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't had
> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
>
> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight
> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
>

I vote that we proceed with the release and put a note not to upgrade if
you use this feature. That way people who don't use the feature get an
upgrade and the people who do use it are not any worse off as long as they
don't upgrade.

Two questions on RAVE-859
 - Do you know if it's a logic error (we are purposely deleting the page)
or is it an unintended JPA delete based on referential integrity?
 - How will your work on the HMVC impact pages and page sharing? Will it
fix this issue by replacing it with a different approach?

If we can get concurrence on RAVE-859 then here is my +1

Chris

>
> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
>
> Ate
>
>
>
> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>
>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>>
>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
>>
>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>> - can you run the demo binaries
>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files
>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>
>>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message