I would also like to see the updates to SAX merged--there's some important API conformance and performance fixes that are worth getting in. There's an open pull request (PR #478) that I think is close to being ready to be merged.
Of the open critical issues, I think DAFFODIL-2399 might be worth blocking if we were close to a fix. But I don't think anyone is actively working on it and I don't believe we ever tracked down what the issue was or what the right fix was. Hopefully that can be fixed by 3.2.0--I've seen that issue a few times and it's very confusing. - Steve On 4/12/21 1:01 PM, John Wass wrote: >> I believe we need to do a release very soon regardless of these 96 issues > > I would like DAFFODIL- 2482 to get into it; > https://github.com/apache/daffodil/pull/520 > > Will increase priority on wrapping this up. > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:43 PM Beckerle, Mike < > mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to discuss our need to create a new release of Daffodil, which >> would be 3.1.0. >> >> We have added enough new functionality certainly to justify a release. >> There are important features already complete, there is the new Runtime2 >> backend, etc. >> >> The challenge is that we have 96 JIRA tickets specifically for bugs that >> are marked "major" or above in priority. 6 are marked critical, so 90 are >> "major". (I am excluding all "improvement" and "new-feature" tickets in >> this count. Just bugs.) Obviously we're not going to fix 96 issues super >> quickly. >> >> Some people advocate a set of criteria for releases which stipulate there >> can be no critical/blocker issues, and no major issues, only minor issues. >> However, the status of critical/major/minor on our JIRA tickets is >> subjective, most bugs are found and reported by us. >> >> Exactly two bugs have "votes" more than zero, which reflects that we've >> not been using the votes field to prioritize anything, but perhaps we >> should use votes moving forward, rather than bumping priorities up and down >> based on our subjective assessment of importance. >> >> I believe we need to do a release very soon regardless of these 96 issues. >> In scrolling through them, evaluating them as "are they more important than >> doing our first TLP release", none of them rise to that level of importance >> to me. >> >> Most of these issues are part of release 3.0.0 and before that as well, so >> 3.1.0 would still be an improvement. >> >> One way to deal with the critical issues is to specifically discuss them >> in a release note. >> >> Please let's discuss openly. What do you believe must​ be in 3.1.0, that >> we would hold up a release over? >> >> -mike beckerle >> >> >> >
