>-----Original Message----- >From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:41 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate > >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...
We were trying to spin up both new RMs with what I normally would have done as a single release candidate. However, it is a very bad policy to depend on a release currently in VOTE. I agree we should have waited for rave-master to complete. > >b) Issue RAVE-553 just reported by Jasha and also confirmed by myself makes >the I don't think we can release with this big of an issue. >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. I agree we need to formalize (and automate) what we can. I normally go through the major functionality quickly before spinning up a release candidate, but I didn't coach either new RM to do the same. > >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. > >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 >> >> 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 >> >> >>
