Eldad/Jaime Are there JIRA tickets for the issues?

Thanks,
Sebastian


2013/3/11 Eldad Yamin <elda...@gmail.com>

> Unless you fix the video bug (cannot remove played videos from screen) I'd
> say -1.
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hello Jaime,
> >
> > -1 votes should contain some justification
> > 11.03.2013 0:02 пользователь "Jaime Balbino" <jaimeb...@gmail.com>
> > написал:
> >
> > > I review my vote: -1
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/10 seba.wag...@gmail.com <seba.wag...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I appreciate all efforts going into that release but I think it needs
> > > some
> > > > more testing.
> > > > Therefore my vote is currently negative.
> > > >
> > > > Mainly because recording on OSX did not work
> > > > I will have to verify that on another box where windows is installed.
> > > > Testing machine OSX 10.8.2, java 1.6.0_43
> > > > Database: Default derby build in database
> > > > Issues:
> > > >  - Server needed 50% of the CPU as soon as I started to record in the
> > > > screensharing client (the java process of the server took 50% the
> > > > screensharing process took another 20-30 %).
> > > > After starting the recording, hitting the stop button just resulted
> in
> > > > nothing.
> > > >
> > > > I am also a bit concerned about the Flash Players CPU usage. In
> > previous
> > > > versions I think the usage of the CPU was significant lower when you
> > did
> > > a
> > > > share your cam+mic.
> > > > But I first need to verify that using the old release to have some
> > > concrete
> > > > numbers.
> > > >
> > > > The Clustering feature is also not ready to be officially released.
> The
> > > > release notes say nothing about the missing components.
> > > > For example: Whiteboard not stored in database, chat not stored in
> > > database
> > > > (which both has minor effects when not done however this would be
> > > essential
> > > > to know for anybody doing tests with it).
> > > > The overall chat is not stored in the database and also not synced
> > > between
> > > > cluster nodes, so that the initial node of the cluster should be the
> > same
> > > > for anybody connecting to openmeetings (also this has only minor
> > effects
> > > > but nowhere documented).
> > > > Server user/pass is nowhere in use but still to be in the database.
> > > > After all there is only a single 3th party verification of the
> cluster.
> > > > The feature is of beta quality.
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/3/8 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > That's a pity :(
> > > > > I was sure all blocking issues are resolved. (There was mail thread
> > > with
> > > > > "release" bug list)
> > > > >
> > > > > @George can you create issues in JIRA?
> > > > >
> > > > > @Sebastian currently I'm modifying Release guide "on the fly" I'll
> > > update
> > > > > it with all my steps, so it will be up-to-date
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM, George Kirkham <
> > gkirk...@co2crc.com.au
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I personally believe we should delay the release of RC1 while we
> > > attend
> > > > > to
> > > > > > minor design/GUI and bug issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > During this time that Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC1 is going
> > through
> > > > > > testing and bug fixes, development [of new features] could
> continue
> > > > with
> > > > > > Apache OpenMeetings 2.2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My reasoning is that people I show OpenMeetings to are impressed
> > with
> > > > its
> > > > > > capabilities but are really turned off by the obvious issues with
> > the
> > > > > > system, for example text that flows over or under other test or
> > > fields
> > > > in
> > > > > > the windows/dialog boxes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that we are with Apache, I would really appreciate it if
> > > > OpenMeetings
> > > > > > did not have these little but annoying issues/bugs and that we
> put
> > > > > forward
> > > > > > a much more professional and polished product. An easy to use,
> > > > > consistent,
> > > > > > and stable application.  New features can be added along the way
> > with
> > > > > > version 2.2, but we really should get to a position where what we
> > > have
> > > > > for
> > > > > > 2.1.0 RC1 is well designed and maintained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When people complain about the look and feel (and they are
> correct
> > to
> > > > > > complain), it really upsets me, and my users do complain, not
> > loudly,
> > > > but
> > > > > > it is obvious that they do not appreciate these minor issues that
> > > > detract
> > > > > > from an otherwise great application, I would request that we
> attend
> > > to
> > > > > > these issues before we release OpenMeetings version 2.1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > George Kirkham
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax...@gmail.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013 5:10 AM
> > > > > > To: priv...@openmeetings.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Fwd: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate
> 1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > From: Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:09 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 1
> > > > > > To: dev <dev@openmeetings.apache.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> > > 2.1.0
> > > > > RC1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Main changes are covered in the
> > > > > > Readme:
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC1/README
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC1/CHANGELOG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc1/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC1/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc1/KEYS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ ] +1  approve
> > > > > > [ ] +0  no opinion
> > > > > > [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My vote is +1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - --
> > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - --
> > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wag...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wag...@gmail.com

Reply via email to