Hi Jacopo, What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch?
Thanks Scott On 13/04/2010, at 8:19 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > Sorry if I am hijacking this thread, but the more I think of it the more I > believe we should officially create an "alpha" release 10.04, instead of > simply creating a release candidate for 10.04. > In this way we will have two official current releases: > 09.04 Stable Release > 10.04 Alpha Release > > Intended audiences: > 09.04: final users with no interest (or resources) in helping the community > to build and maintain stable releases > 10.04: users (they could be service providers, end user companies with > internal resources or longer term goals etc...) that are willing to help the > community to build and maintain a stable release > > If there will be interest around the 10.04 alpha release, we will get bug > fixes that will be part of a future 10.04.1 "stable" (bug fix) release (or a > "beta" release), or even 10.04.2,3,4,5 etc... (each of them more stable than > the predecessor). > > Jacopo > > On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Just to be clear though, I am NOT in favor of back-porting large chunks of >> functionality to the release branch under the guise of bug fixes. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 8/04/2010, at 12:06 PM, Anil Patel wrote: >> >>> Looks like, none who participated in this thread have objections for >>> merging of securitycontext20091231 branch with trunk. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards >>> Anil Patel >>> HotWax Media Inc >>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>> >>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> Well I don't see any problem with dropping it in right now then. The real >>>> question will be what do people want to be able to backport once the >>>> release branch is created. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 7/04/2010, at 5:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>>> The security redesign implementation itself is mostly finished. There are >>>>> a few TODOs and they can be found in the BranchReadMe.txt file. >>>>> >>>>> I recently synchronized the branch with the trunk and there is a remote >>>>> chance something in the design might have broken in the process. I need >>>>> to run some tests and review the code to see if that happened. >>>>> >>>>> The Example component has been switched over to the new design. >>>>> >>>>> There is a user login called "artifact-user" that demonstrates the new >>>>> design. That user login is restricted to using the Example component. >>>>> >>>>> If the branch was merged back to the trunk and the new security design >>>>> was enabled, the Example component would use the new design and the >>>>> remaining components would still use the current security design. The two >>>>> can co-exist. >>>>> >>>>> I imagine the process after that would be similar to when we introduced >>>>> the permission checking services - contributors can contribute code that >>>>> converts parts of the project over to the new security design. Conversion >>>>> involves removing hard-coded permission checks and creating seed data to >>>>> grant permission to component artifacts. >>>>> >>>>> As I mentioned before, switching a component over to the new design can >>>>> create some unexpected problems. That's because our existing code has >>>>> security holes in it, and the new design plugs those holes - making parts >>>>> of the component unreachable. In other words, parts of code that happily >>>>> allow you to do things you don't have permission to do will start to >>>>> throw exceptions in the new design. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> Question: >>>>>> What exactly is the current status of the execution branch? What is it >>>>>> that needs to be done for it to be enabled in the trunk? >>>>>> I'm sorry if you feel you've already answered that question but I'm >>>>>> afraid it still isn't entirely clear to me. >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> On 7/04/2010, at 5:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> If we wait, then we're waiting for evaluation and testing of the >>>>>>> branch. I've done all I can do - the code is written, I suggested we do >>>>>>> the merge before the release branch, and I gave my reasons for >>>>>>> suggesting it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At this point in time I have stepped out of the discussion (in a >>>>>>> positive way) to give others a chance to look at the design and the >>>>>>> code and decide for themselves if it should be included. In other >>>>>>> words, I don't want to be in a position where I have to convince the >>>>>>> community what it should do. If the design and the implementation are >>>>>>> good, then there will be no need to convince anyone, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll answer questions about the executioncontext branch, and I'll >>>>>>> continue to work on it here and there when I have the time. If the >>>>>>> release branch is created without it, then that will be fine with me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>> Considering we have yet to do an official release after 3.5 years and >>>>>>>> the lack of user interest in our release branches (partly because we >>>>>>>> recommend the trunk to everybody), I think it would be a waste of time >>>>>>>> and effort to create more than one release branch per year. If we >>>>>>>> want the security branch in there then lets wait, there is no good >>>>>>>> reason for us to release this month, it's just an arbitrary date. >>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>> On 7/04/2010, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would suggest to: >>>>>>>>> 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done >>>>>>>>> 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue >>>>>>>>> 3) do another release (10.06?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release >>>>>>>>> should be, but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so >>>>>>>>> I will continue to insist with the release-often practice. :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 >>>>>>>>>> branch into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it >>>>>>>>>> will be disabled - so everything will still work the same. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the >>>>>>>>>> forthcoming changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design >>>>>>>>>> completed by the release that follows 10.x. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin >>>>>>>>>> merging the design into the trunk. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
