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 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:42:59 GMT
OOM came at  mvn -P apache-release release:perform while uploading some bigger file to repo.
As the release.sh already have MAVEN_OPTS included so i did not set. Then i increased the
-Xmx to 2048 and -XX:MaxPermSize=512m and build process worked fine. I am going to verify
the release and send for vote. 

Thanks
Raminder

On Apr 9, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jasha Joachimsthal [mailto:j.joachimsthal@onehippo.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:22 PM
>> To: dev@rave.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate
>> 
>> On 9 April 2012 18:03, Raminderjeet Singh <raminderjsingh@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Jasha.  I appended CHANGELOG file with Jira's from 0.10.1 and 0.10.
>>> 
>>> Another thing to careful about release is you may face a failure while
>>> release (like i faced out of memory even  MAVEN_OPTS). Please follow
>>> http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html RECOVERING FROM A VETOED
>>> RELEASE and delete the tag.
>>> 
>> 
>> Did you get the OOM when doing release:prepare or release:perform? If it
>> happens during release:perform there's no need to delete the tag in svn.
>> release:prepare creates the tag, release:perform makes the artifacts from
>> that tag.
> 
> Any time you are doing a release, be sure to follow step 1 of the release process [1]
> 
> [1] : http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 9 April 2012 17:24, Franklin, Matthew B. <mfranklin@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/9/12 11:10 AM, "Jasha Joachimsthal"
>> <j.joachimsthal@onehippo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 9 April 2012 15:51, Franklin, Matthew B. <mfranklin@mitre.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/9/12 9:46 AM, "Raminderjeet Singh"
>> <raminderjsingh@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As the fix is already part of trunk and we did not create
any branch
>>> so
>>>>>>>> what should i do to create build. Shall i create a tag 0.10.1
from
>>>>>>> trunk
>>>>>>>> and create the release. As the trunk pom's are already at
>>>>>>> 0.11-snaphot, i
>>>>>>>> need to careful not to update them again i release process.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Since the fix is in place in trunk, IMO we no longer need to
branch.
>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>> could release 0.10.1 right now out of trunk without any need
to
>> change
>>>>>>> poms.  Just make sure you set the development version to 0.11-
>> SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>> when prompted by the release plugin...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should we create a 0.10.1 version in Jira as well?
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Created and added it as fix version for RAVE-541, RAVE-542 and RAVE-553.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Raminder
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tested the portal and it works again. Thanks for fixing
it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 6 April 2012 20:37, Mahadevan, Venkat <venkatm@mitre.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Fixed the issue. Please let me know otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Venkat
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/12 9:19 AM, "Mahadevan, Venkat" <venkatm@mitre.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Jasha, I will work on RAVE-541 and fix the issue
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/12 6:26 AM, "Jasha Joachimsthal"
>>>>>>> <j.joachimsthal@onehippo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> @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.or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /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