In preparation for cutting the release branch have we confirmed that Geode's LICENSE and NOTICE file been confirmed to accurately reflect what is being shipped for v1.10?
>From Apache: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html *"*The LICENSE and NOTICE files must exactly represent the contents of the distribution they reside in." Ideally this is kept up to date during development as the dependencies change or are added but this often is missed and needs to be reconciled on develop before we cut a release branch. -Dick On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:04 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > From that email: > > To make this work, it's important to be strict > about cutting the release branch on the set date and only allow critical > fixes after the release has been cut. Once we start compromising on this, > we go down a slippery slope that ultimately leads to not getting the > predictability benefits described here. > > We are perilously close to the "slippery slope”: > * Geode 1.8.0 was announced on Dec 12 — almost 8 months ago > * Geode 1.9.0 was announced on Apr 25 — putting us about 5 weeks late > already on cutting the 1.10 branch > > It seems like the community reaction to branching from the SHA initially > proposed is “woah, not quite yet”. > > To get last-minute stuff in (or out) and get back on track, I propose > setting a strict CUT date for the 1.10 branch at 3PM PDT Thursday August 1. > > -Owen > > > > On Jul 30, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Karen, > > > > Here is the previous discussion that was very positively received: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d36a63c3794d13506ecad3d52a2aca938dcf0f8509b61860bbbc50cd@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E > > > > However, JIRA tells me that GEODE-7013 is already fixed. If we were to go > > with a SHA from this week, for which Jake also chimed in with plenty of > > reasons, this should be in the release. > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:10 PM Karen Miller <kmil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> Alexander, can you point me at the policy decision for the "critical > issue" > >> rule you mention? I always though it was up > >> to the release manager. > >> > >> I want GEODE-7013 fixes in because it is the right thing to do. Our > gfsh > >> help/hint wasn't working the way we say that it did. > >> With the fix, it does. I want either the documentation to match the > code, > >> or I want the code to match the documentation. > >> The fix in GEODE-7013 changes the code to match the existing > documentation, > >> so we don't have to change the documentation > >> (which would have needed to be cherry-picked into our 1.10 release > branch). > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:47 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> > >>> Our "critical issue” rule has the effect that the bar to commit to > >> develop > >>> is “low”, but the bar to cherry-pick to support branch is “very high”. > >>> > >>> Contributors could plan around this disparity more easily if any of the > >>> following were true: > >>> - releases were more frequent > >>> - planned cut date of release branch was announced in advance (rather > >> than > >>> retroactively) > >>> - a process existed for making exceptions to the “critical issue” rule > >>> > >>> I agree that the proposed SHA looks like a relatively stable > branchpoint > >>> (coming near the end of a nice period of solid green in the pipeline), > >> and > >>> I acknowledge that fair warning was given a week ago that a branch was > >>> “coming soon”, but I wonder if there is anything we can do to make the > >>> rules for what gets in a release and what doesn’t feel a little less > >>> arbitrary? > >>> > >>> -Owen > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jul 30, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dick, thank you for stepping up! > >>>> > >>>> I think it's great to cut the branch sooner rather than later. There > >>>> already is GEODE-7012 which introduces a distributed deadlock during > >>>> startup. That seems like a critical issue to fix. That should be able > >> to > >>>> happen after we cut the branch though. > >>>> > >>>> Karen, I wonder if that could be merged after the branch got cut, but > >>> also > >>>> wonder if that fits our "critical issue" rule for being merged after > >> the > >>>> branch has been cut or hold up the release. This has been broken since > >> a > >>>> very long time. Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:51 AM Karen Miller <kmil...@pivotal.io> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I'd like to see the changes from > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7013 included in the > >> Geode > >>>>> 1.10 > >>>>> release. GEODE-7013's changes restore gfsh help/hint behavior that > was > >>> lost > >>>>> during a refactor in the earliest > >>>>> releases of Geode. The commit occurred after SHA1 > >>>>> dc6890107a2651d8ba1450e8db8a1c39d712fdc7. > >>>>> Thanks. Karen > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:39 AM Dick Cavender <di...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'll take on the Release Manager role for Geode 1.10 with the 1.9.0 > >>>>> release > >>>>>> manager's help (Owen:). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd like to propose cutting the release/1.10 branch off develop sha: > >>>>>> dc6890107a2651d8ba1450e8db8a1c39d712fdc7 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> aka: 1.10.0-SNAPSHOT.476 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please speak up and discuss. We'll then start taking considerations > >> for > >>>>>> additional changes for 1.1.0 after we get the branch and pipeline in > >>>>> place. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Dick > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:08 PM Alexander Murmann < > >> amurm...@apache.org > >>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for calling this out Ernie! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It might be a good idea to cut the release and at the same time > keep > >>>>>>> looking for urgent issues that need to be resolved and merged. Once > >>> the > >>>>>>> branch is cut, we release likelihood of new issues being > introduced. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does anyone know of any other issues, we'd want to make sure get > >>>>>> addressed > >>>>>>> before we ship? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Ernest Burghardt < > >>>>> eburgha...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is a PR #3844 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3844> > up > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>> address GEODE-7012 < > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7012 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> think this should be in the next release... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> EB > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:07 PM Alexander Murmann < > >>>>> amurm...@apache.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Cutting the release* > >>>>>>>>> Do we have any volunteers to take over the release manager role? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Re: Udo's concerns* > >>>>>>>>> While I believe that iterations of this particular work have been > >>>>>>>> discussed > >>>>>>>>> on the mailing list as far back as March 2018, I do think that we > >>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>> take Udo's response as an indicator that something with our > larger > >>>>>>>> proposal > >>>>>>>>> process needs to be improved. We used to have synchronous Geode > >>>>> club > >>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>> sessions. For future discussions and for proposals in particular, > >> I > >>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>> it would be great to supplement our asynchronous mailing list > >>>>>>>> communication > >>>>>>>>> with a synchronous video chat discussions by the community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:02 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for cutting a 1.10.0 release branch. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:55 PM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>> I believe the original authors of the feature has done their > >>>>> due > >>>>>>>>>> diligence > >>>>>>>>>>> and followed all steps, we can get this feature in under the > >>>>>>>>> Experimental > >>>>>>>>>>> flag and let the community improve on it, if there is anything > >>>>>> else > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> needs to be done. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We have done this before for Lucene re-index feature, where we > >>>>>>>> involved > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> entire community in its development, phase by phase. The wiki > >>>>> is > >>>>>> up > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> running, if someone has any concerns can raise it as a JIRA or > >>>>>>>> comment > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> the wiki and the community as a whole can decide if it is a > >>>>> valid > >>>>>>>>>>> concern or not and act upon it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:40 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Alexander + @Jared, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So maybe that was my misunderstanding on the RFC (not being > >>>>>>>> optional > >>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>> new feature work). Given that this is a new feature, there is > >>>>>>>>>>>> significant risk to getting it "wrong". > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was expecting more discussion around this. I have some > >>>>>>> objections > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> the current approach/design. Given that my day job does not > >>>>>> allow > >>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond in a timely manner, I would have not been able to get > >>>>>> all > >>>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns raised. In addition, throwing something onto the > >>>>> wiki, > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> then > >>>>>>>>>>>> a few weeks before we'd like to cut a version raising a > >>>>>>> discussion > >>>>>>>>>>>> thread on work that has been going on for months already does > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>> help > >>>>>>>>>>>> with the community being able to read, digest, think, reason > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> respond > >>>>>>>>>>>> BEFORE it is released. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I know `@Experimental` is non-binding on API's or usage, BUT > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>> prefer > >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the ground work to have been discussed, API's > >>>>> validated > >>>>>>>>> BEFORE > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is released into the wild. I mean this is a PUBLIC API, so > >>>>>>> we'd > >>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to get it more correct than the previous one. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it is just me, taking it too serious... Where I prefer > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>> something as close to 95% correct (and discussed). > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway.. If we want to cut 1.10... and we should... Let's do > >>>>>> so.. > >>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer that more on the correctness on the approach. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Udo > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/19 11:08 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe we should be including anything into the > >>>>>> Geode > >>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has not gone through the correct process of feature > >>>>>>>> proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All work under the experimental cluster management service > >>>>>> has > >>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> yet > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved by the agreed upon RFC process. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Udo, I didn't take the RFC process that we agreed on to be > >>>>> a > >>>>>>> gate > >>>>>>>>>>> keeper, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but rather a way to de-risk work before making a PR. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From the RFC doc in the wiki: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When to write an RFC? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Writing an RFC should be entirely voluntary. There is > >>>>> always > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> option > >>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> going straight to a pull request. However, for larger > >>>>>> changes, > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> might > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wise to de-risk the risk of rejection of the pull request > >>>>> by > >>>>>>>> first > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gathering input from the community. Therefore it’s up to > >>>>>> every > >>>>>>>>>> member > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our community to decide themselves when they want to reach > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>> tool. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we want to change the role of the RFC process, that's > >>>>> fine > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> me, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we should have that discussion first. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:30 AM Jared Stewart < > >>>>>>>>>>> stewart.ja...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was missing from the RFC process for the cluster > >>>>>>> management > >>>>>>>>>>>> service? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I saw a [Discuss] thread for it, as well as a proposal at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Cluster+Management+Service > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:02 AM Udo Kohlmeyer < > >>>>>>> u...@apache.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe we should be including anything into the > >>>>>>> Geode > >>>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has not gone through the correct process of feature > >>>>>>>>> proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All work under the experimental cluster management > >>>>> service > >>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>> yet > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved by the agreed upon RFC process. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe we should be including this work, > >>>>>>> experimental > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Udo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/19 4:51 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Udo, do you mind explaining how the RFC process comes > >>>>> into > >>>>>>>> this? > >>>>>>>>>> Are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting that we should wait if an RFC had a target > >>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>> attached? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:47 PM Udo Kohlmeyer < > >>>>>>> u...@apache.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to wait for this, as there has > >>>>> been > >>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>>> RFC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> process > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Udo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/19 3:38 PM, Jinmei Liao wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Work is still being planned to move the cluster > >>>>>> management > >>>>>>>>> rest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under an experimental version flag and use a geode > >>>>>>> property > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> turn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on/off. I would say we are ready to cut the geode > >>>>> 1.10.0 > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:24 PM Alexander Murmann < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurm...@apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We released Geode 1.9.0 on April 25th. That's about 3 > >>>>>>>> months > >>>>>>>>>> ago. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> End > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last year we discussed releasing quarterly. In the > >>>>> past > >>>>>>>> we've > >>>>>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month between cutting a release branch and actually > >>>>>>>> shipping > >>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means we are already behind our target release > >>>>>>>> cadence. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your thoughts on cutting a 1.10.0 release > >>>>>> branch > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>> week? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would anyone like to volunteer to be the release > >>>>>> manager > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> geode > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.10.0? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you all! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
