On 6 April 2012 10:46, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/06/2012 10:41 AM, Ate Douma wrote: > >> I've got two remarks so far: >> >> a) This release candidate is dependent on the non-yet released >> rave-master-0.10, >> which I don't like much. >> >> IMO it would have been better to wait another day until the rave-master >> was >> formally released. Although the rave-master release most certainly will >> commence, in theory if we find a last minute blocker issue with it >> causing its >> release to be failed, it would cause *this* release candidate then to fail >> automatically as well... >> >> b) Issue RAVE-553 just reported by Jasha and also confirmed by myself >> makes the >> release useless for all practical use-cases and most certainly should >> have been >> easily tested/found before the release. We should look into improving our >> quality assurance and add some minimal but sensible (interaction) testing >> plan >> which should pass before we cut a release candidate because this is quite >> annoying. >> >> For b) I'm inclined to vote -1 or at least -0. As I haven't had time to >> further >> review I'll postpone casting my vote for now but it doesn't look rosy to >> me. >> > > BTW: just want to make clear, especially for Raminder, I consider b) and > the need for improving on our quality assurance a responsibility of the > team, including myself, not one of the release-manager who but must execute > and ascertain this.
If I revert the commit in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-541 I can create new users again. I don't know what the intention of this feature was, but the result is that it creates a new PROFILE page instead of a new USER page. The portal cannot handle a user without a user page. The portal can however render a profile page if no profile page is present yet for that user. We have multiple options: 0. accept the 0.10 release, but I also doubt between -0 and -1 1. reject the 0.10 release, fix or revert the issue, no new release until the end of the month 2. reject the 0.10 release, revert the commit done for RAVE-541 and create a new 0.10.1 release after the rave-master pom has been released 3. reject the 0.10 release, fix the RAVE-541 issue and create a new 0.10.1 release after the rave-master pom has been released For option 2 & 3 we don't want other new features in the 0.10.1 release so either a. hold all commits until the issue RAVE-541 has been resolved or reverted. Create a release from trunk (0.11-SNAPSHOT -> 0.10.1 -> 0.11-SNAPSHOT) b. create a branch from 0.10 tag (0.10.1-SNAPSHOT), fix or revert RAVE-541, release from the branch (0.10.1-SNAPSHOT -> 0.10.1 -> 0.10.2-SNAPSHOT). Merge the fix into trunk (0.11-SNAPSHOT) @Venkat (or whoever can fix the issue and knows what the intention was): in case we want a 0.10.1 release, do you think you can fix this issue soon, shall we first revert your commit and give you more time to solve it? Jasha > > >> Ate >> >> >> On 04/06/2012 02:51 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote: >> >>> This is discussion thread for vote on Apache Rave Project 0.10 Release >>> Candidate >>> >>> For more information on the release process, checkout - >>> >>> http://rave.apache.org/**release-management.html<http://rave.apache.org/release-management.html> >>> >>> Some of the things to check before voting are: >>> - can you run the demo binaries >>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag >>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE and >>> DISCLAIMER files >>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable >>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
