I play devil¹s advocate and argue that version 1.0.0 release is a good chance to complete Pull Request 666, 672 and 674 and make the ocw-cli work well with the datasets described on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
Thanks, Kyo On 9/23/15, 10:44 AM, "mltjo...@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce" <mltjo...@gmail.com on behalf of jo...@apache.org> wrote: >Kyo, > >Do you have a specific pull request(s) that you think need to be in the >1.0.0 release and couldn't wait until the next release? That might help us >get started moving in the direction to getting everything resolved! > > > >-- Jimmy > >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are >> eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a product >> there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how >>easy >> it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful features >> that come along. >> >> I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest. >> >> -- Jimmy >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L) >><huikyo....@jpl.nasa.gov >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Lewis, >>> >>> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed. >>> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets >>> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov >>> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To >>>achieve >>> this, several people have worked hard during the summer. >>> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with >>> working RCMES is really important. >>> Just my two cents. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kyo >>> >>> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" >>><lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >Hi Kyo, >>> > >>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <dev-digest-h...@climate.apache.org> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull >>> >> requests under pending now. >>> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Kyo >>> >> >>> >> >>> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE. >>> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This >>>VOTE >>> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, >>>2015. >>> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1 >>> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind >>>that >>> 20 >>> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code >>> >contributions >>> >have arrived during that window. >>> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as >>>commits to >>> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a >>>critical >>> >bug >>> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I >>>am >>> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the >>>release of >>> >a >>> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by >>>the >>> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above. >>> >Does this make sense? >>> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us >>> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time >>> >window? >>> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo. >>> >Thanks >>> >Lewis >>> >>> >>
