I don't think I have enough permission to move issues in JIRA or even create a new unreleased version. The Bulk Edit tool won't let me move issues (it says I don't have permission). I poked around in the JIRA UI and found the list of releases (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/DAFFODIL?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:release-page&status=released-unreleased), but I can't find a way in the UI to create 3.4.0 as a new unreleased version or mark 3.3.0 as a released version.
Incidentally, I found a way to generate release notes automatically using JIRA itself. Go to https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/DAFFODIL/versions/12350900 and click the "Release Notes" link below the red "Create" button. Then you end up with a nice list of issues (https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12321622&version=12350900) which looks almost perfect (unfortunately the list includes 8 unresolved issues that need to be moved to 3.4.0 once 3.4.0 is created and available for use). I think we can simplify the release workflow by using this "Release Notes", copying the list of issues, editing the issue numbers to {% jira XXXX %} format, and editing the category titles. John -----Original Message----- From: Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) <john.interra...@ge.com> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 10:19 AM To: mbecke...@apache.org Cc: dev@daffodil.apache.org Subject: EXT: [DISCUSS] need to release Daffodil 3.3.0 Please review and approve Prepare for Release 3.3.0 by tuxji · Pull Request #775 · apache/daffodil (github.com)<https://github.com/apache/daffodil/pull/775>. Also, please help improve the release notes by reviewing Prepare for Release 3.3.0 by tuxji · Pull Request #82 · apache/daffodil-site (github.com)<https://github.com/apache/daffodil-site/pull/82>. From: Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 6:54 AM To: Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) <john.interra...@ge.com> Cc: dev@daffodil.apache.org Subject: EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] need to release Daffodil 3.3.0 Nobody else has stepped forward, so I think you "win the prize" for this release John. On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:57 PM Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) <john.interra...@ge.com<mailto:john.interra...@ge.com>> wrote: I can volunteer to be release manager if no one else wants to and you don't need the rc soon (I won't have time to prepare a rc until Thursday evening and it's my first time so it would take more time). John -----Original Message----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 1:59 PM To: dev@daffodil.apache.org<mailto:dev@daffodil.apache.org> Subject: EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] need to release Daffodil 3.3.0 Ok, all the critical issues for 3.3.0 are fixed now. Any volunteers for release manager? On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 7:24 PM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> wrote: > This was an easy fix. > > Once this gets merged I believe we have direction to move forward with > 3.3.0 release process. > > Who would like to be release manager? > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:06 PM Mike Beckerle > <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> > wrote: > >> So the 3 blocking issues have been fixed/merged. >> >> However, of several bugs found over the last few days, this one is >> quite >> problematic: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2673 >> >> I am going to try to fix this in the next day, and if it proves to be >> harder than that, postpone it until post 3.3.0. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:37 AM Steve Lawrence >> <slawre...@apache.org<mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> >> wrote: >> >>> Agreed. +1 to start the release processes once these are resolved. >>> >>> On 3/10/22 6:05 PM, Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) wrote: >>> > Fixing these 3 tickets seems sufficient to me. >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Mike Beckerle >>> > <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> >>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 6:00 PM >>> > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org<mailto:dev@daffodil.apache.org> >>> > Subject: EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] need to release Daffodil 3.3.0 >>> > >>> > Once the revert/fix for regressions is merged, I think we're down >>> > to >>> just these 3 tickets as really critical for Daffodil 3.3.0 release: >>> > >>> > DAFFODIL-2652 >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2652> - >>> Ability to disable all alignment >>> > >>> > Given the number of outstanding bugs associated with unparser >>> > deadlock >>> and alignment I think this feature is an important hedge allowing >>> progress to be made by schema authors even if they run into these >>> unparser/alignment related issues (like DAFFODIL-2662 or >>> DAFFODIL-2666 which are hard to fix, and I think we don't want to >>> hold back the release for those fixes because they will take a >>> while.) >>> > >>> > DAFFODIL-2650 >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2650> - >>> using config file with cli parse or save parser causes backtrace >>> > >>> > Major usability issue when dealing with DFDL schemas that issue >>> > many >>> warnings. >>> > >>> > DAFFODIL-2267 >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2267> - >>> Warnings emitted on pre-compiled parsers >>> > >>> > Major usability issue when dealing with DFDL schemas that issue >>> > many >>> warnings in deployed Daffodil-based applications. Clutters the log >>> with too many things users have to know can be ignored. >>> > >>> > I will say these latter 2 bugs have been a huge pain in the neck >>> > to me >>> of late in debugging efforts associated with some DFDL schema work. >>> They just so clutter the output that you really can't see what is >>> going on sometimes. >>> > >>> > Thoughts? Is fixing these enough for us to do a release of 3.3.0 ? >>> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 2:06 PM Mike Beckerle >>> > <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> I just opened a PR which reverts a change which fixed a bug >>> >> (DAFFODIL-2626), but caused a number of regressions detected only >>> >> by other DFDL schemas such as NITF. (DAFFODIL-2666 and >>> >> DAFFODIL-2662 are regressions it caused.) >>> >> >>> >> The original bug is preferable to these regressions. >>> >> >>> >> This will get us closer to a releasable 3.3.0. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 2:12 PM Mike Beckerle >>> >> <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I've marked all the alignment/cyclic-deadlock regressions as >>> >>> blockers for >>> >>> 3.3.0 along with the "hammer" to just turn off alignment. >>> >>> >>> >>> The fixing suggested in the thread here may be the fix, or the >>> "hammer" >>> >>> fix, but the regressions on unparsing have to be addressed in >>> >>> 3.3.0, i.e., asap, before we can release it. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think other things we "almost" got working, like prefixed >>> >>> length fixes (of various bugs) could wait for a later release. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are numerous user projects I know about that are depending >>> >>> on >>> >>> 3.3.0 coming out quite soon now, without regressions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:19 AM Steve Lawrence >>> >>> <slawre...@apache.org<mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I assume this is caused by alignment regions not getting >>> >>>> optimized out with the recent changes to the alignment >>> >>>> algorithm. It's now more correct, but it's more pessimistic. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> A hammer to just disable alignment might be a reasonable >>> >>>> solution, but I'd be concerned there are alignment regions that >>> >>>> are needed, it's not usually obvious, especially in complex schemas. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I think the main change that causes regions to fail to optimize >>> >>>> out is that we can't optimize out alignment related to global >>> >>>> declarations because we don't know the alignment of the references. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I added comments in >>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2626 >>> >>>> that discuss this issue, and a potential fixe. I believe we >>> >>>> just need to require that alignment of global decl's to be the >>> >>>> same as their references. I hope that this would allow more >>> >>>> optimization of alignment regions. One issue was raised about >>> >>>> global complexType's, who's alignment only comes from the >>> >>>> references, with no information on the declaration. So that also >>> >>>> causes issues with this approach. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I think implementing one or both of these options as tunables >>> >>>> might help improve the alignment issue and would be reasonable >>> >>>> to get in >>> 3.3.0. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 2/23/22 11:08 AM, Mike Beckerle wrote: >>> >>>>> So, we seem to be seeing a lot of regressions in various DFDL >>> >>>>> schemas >>> >>>> like >>> >>>>> most recently NITF, previously PNG. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> What if users run into this in their own DFDL schemas? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> These are showing unparser deadlocks due to cyclic relationships. >>> >>>>> At >>> >>>> one >>> >>>>> time we discussed adding a "big hammer" property or tunable >>> >>>>> that simply turns off alignment, as a workaround for all these >>> >>>>> sorts of alignment issues. I am wondering if we will need that >>> >>>>> so that users can work >>> >>>> around >>> >>>>> these alignment issues in their schemas. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Changing these schemas for 3.3.0 compatibility is highly >>> >>>>> undesirable >>> >>>> (as >>> >>>>> was done for PNG), even if the changes are backward compatible. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> (Though if the schemas are actually incorrect in some way that >>> >>>>> we're >>> >>>> now >>> >>>>> detecting more effectively, that is the right fix.) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:38 AM Interrante, John A (GE >>> >>>>> Research, >>> >>>>> US) < john.interra...@ge.com<mailto:john.interra...@ge.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> +1 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I personally have no blocker or urgent issues that must be >>> >>>>>> fixed >>> >>>> before >>> >>>>>> the next release (only some things I will need to start >>> >>>>>> working on in >>> >>>> the C >>> >>>>>> backend, "Runtime 2," to handle some more complicated schemas). >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> How will the roadmap for upcoming releases ( >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DAFFODIL/Roadmap+for+Upc >>> >>>> oming+Releases >>> >>>> ) >>> >>>>>> change as a result of 3.3.0 being released asap? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> John >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>>>> From: Mike Beckerle >>> >>>>>> <mbecke...@apache.org<mailto:mbecke...@apache.org>> >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 10:44 AM >>> >>>>>> To: dev@daffodil.apache.org<mailto:dev@daffodil.apache.org> >>> >>>>>> Subject: EXT: [DISCUSS] need to release Daffodil 3.3.0 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> WARNING: This email originated from outside of GE. Please >>> >>>>>> validate the sender's email address before clicking on links >>> >>>>>> or attachments as >>> >>>> they may >>> >>>>>> not be safe. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> A number of people are asking for 3.3.0, with its many bug >>> >>>>>> fixes, to >>> >>>> be >>> >>>>>> released asap. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Are there any remaining issues that must be fixed before this >>> release? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Otherwise I'd like to suggest we release 3.3.0. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>
