rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raminderjeet Singh <raminderjsi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:56:03 GMT
I noticed the rave-master pom issue while verifying the release and added the note on top.
I should have waited for master pom to release. I agree some more testing before sending the
release vote should have helped me to find the issue. Having some integration test cases should
definitely help. I am going to cancel the vote for this release and will create 0.10+ based
on community feedback.

Thanks
Raminder

On Apr 6, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jasha Joachimsthal [mailto:j.joachimsthal@onehippo.com]
>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 6:27 AM
>> To: dev@rave.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate
>> 
>> On 6 April 2012 10:46, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 04/06/2012 10:41 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I've got two remarks so far:
>>>> 
>>>> a) This release candidate is dependent on the non-yet released
>>>> rave-master-0.10,
>>>> which I don't like much.
>>>> 
>>>> IMO it would have been better to wait another day until the rave-master
>>>> was
>>>> formally released. Although the rave-master release most certainly will
>>>> commence, in theory if we find a last minute blocker issue with it
>>>> causing its
>>>> release to be failed, it would cause *this* release candidate then to fail
>>>> automatically as well...
>>>> 
>>>> b) Issue RAVE-553 just reported by Jasha and also confirmed by myself
>>>> makes the
>>>> release useless for all practical use-cases and most certainly should
>>>> have been
>>>> easily tested/found before the release. We should look into improving our
>>>> quality assurance and add some minimal but sensible (interaction) testing
>>>> plan
>>>> which should pass before we cut a release candidate because this is quite
>>>> annoying.
>>>> 
>>>> For b) I'm inclined to vote -1 or at least -0. As I haven't had time to
>>>> further
>>>> review I'll postpone casting my vote for now but it doesn't look rosy to
>>>> me.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> BTW: just want to make clear, especially for Raminder, I consider b) and
>>> the need for improving on our quality assurance a responsibility of the
>>> team, including myself, not one of the release-manager who but must
>> execute
>>> and ascertain this.
>> 
>> 
>> If I revert the commit in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-541 I
>> can create new users again. I don't know what the intention of this feature
>> was, but the result is that it creates a new PROFILE page instead of a new
>> USER page. The portal cannot handle a user without a user page. The portal
>> can however render a profile page if no profile page is present yet for
>> that user.
>> 
>> We have multiple options:
>> 0. accept the 0.10 release, but I also doubt between -0 and -1
>> 1. reject the 0.10 release, fix or revert the issue, no new release until
>> the end of the month
>> 2. reject the 0.10 release, revert the commit done for RAVE-541 and create
>> a new 0.10.1 release after the rave-master pom has been released
>> 3. reject the 0.10 release, fix the RAVE-541 issue and create a new 0.10.1
>> release after the rave-master pom has been released
> 
> +1 for #3
> 
>> 
>> For option 2 & 3 we don't want other new features in the 0.10.1 release so
>> either
>> a. hold all commits until the issue RAVE-541 has been resolved or reverted.
>> Create a release from trunk (0.11-SNAPSHOT -> 0.10.1 -> 0.11-SNAPSHOT)
>> b. create a branch from 0.10 tag (0.10.1-SNAPSHOT), fix or revert RAVE-541,
>> release from the branch (0.10.1-SNAPSHOT -> 0.10.1 -> 0.10.2-SNAPSHOT).
>> Merge the fix into trunk (0.11-SNAPSHOT)
> 
> +1 for b.  though I am not sure where 0.10.2 comes from.  I would say we would delete
that branch once the release is complete. 
> 
>> 
>> @Venkat (or whoever can fix the issue and knows what the intention was): in
>> case we want a 0.10.1 release, do you think you can fix this issue soon,
>> shall we first revert your commit and give you more time to solve it?
>> 
>> Jasha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Ate
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 04/06/2012 02:51 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This is discussion thread for vote on Apache Rave Project 0.10 Release
>>>>> Candidate
>>>>> 
>>>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://rave.apache.org/**release-
>> management.html<http://rave.apache.org/release-management.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, NOTICE
and
>>>>> DISCLAIMER files
>>>>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
>>>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 


Mime
View raw message