rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jasha Joachimsthal <j.joachimst...@onehippo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate
Date Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:21:52 GMT
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.


>
>
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message