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 0.10 Release Candidate
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:36:09 GMT
>-----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