Sorry, its my mistake. I should have been more thorough and should have spent more time in testing covering all possible scenarios.
-Venkat On 4/6/12 4:41 AM, "Ate Douma" <[email protected]> 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. > >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 >> >> >> >
