directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny" <>
Subject Re: locking issue with apacheds 0.9 - URGENT !!!
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:15:53 GMT
Hi Trygve,

On 7/7/06, Trygve Laugstøl <> wrote:
> If you have a RC that is not of final release quality you should really
> use another name than RC. If it really is that unstable it should still
> be marked as an unstable release.
> Release candidates usually means that "This is what I would like to
> release, please test it and if everything is ok we'll rename it to 1.0"
> --
> Trygve

RC are really suposed to be release candidate, not final. A RC can be found
unstable because a bug has been found in it. We are not igniring major bugs,
and we really try to cut a new RC when all the current RC major bugs are
closed. If someone download a RC, and found a bug, perfect : we are on our
way to a new RC.

The problem is that we may invent new names like GA, or whatever, but it
won't change the process :
- while all the major functionnalities are not into the product, it's
a 0.Xversion
- when we have gathered all the makor functions into the product, and when
all the running major bugs are fixed, we deliver a 1.0-RC1
- then, users simply use it a different way we do. They fill JIRAs, attach
patches, and we fix them. We don't add more features, we just fix minor ones
in the mean time.
- at a point, we successfully closed all the major issues : time for a new
- after a few iterations, we may think that the version is stable enough to
be labeled 1.0. It takes time because it's not just a question of code, but
mainly documentation, minor fixes, performances tests, regression tests, and
so on.

FYI, RC3 was supposed to be stable enough 3 weeks ago, then while doing
intensive tests, we found a major performance problem, and a major memory
leak (not likeley to be found before you insert more than 100 000 entries).
Call it unstable, but only because the unstability factor has popup.

So I think we comply with the "please test it" spirit. And be sure that the
next RC (RC4) won't be the last one. We have a RC5 in mind because we need
to improve the documentation, and because many little bugs need to be
patched (an exemple of what is a little bug : if you use the LdifReader
class, it won't accept a file which does not end with two \n : this is a
bug, but it's not blocking. Users shiuld only be informed on this
limitation. We may differ the fix until the next RC)

I hope my opinion is shared, I also may be totally wrong, but, however, this
is always the same MTBF problem :
 * a program is correct until the next found bug



Emmanuel Lécharny

View raw message