On 9 April 2012 15:51, Franklin, Matthew B. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 4/9/12 9:46 AM, "Raminderjeet Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >As the fix is already part of trunk and we did not create any branch so > >what should i do to create build. Shall i create a tag 0.10.1 from trunk > >and create the release. As the trunk pom's are already at 0.11-snaphot, i > >need to careful not to update them again i release process. > > Since the fix is in place in trunk, IMO we no longer need to branch. You > could release 0.10.1 right now out of trunk without any need to change > poms. Just make sure you set the development version to 0.11-SNAPSHOT > when prompted by the release plugin... > Should we create a 0.10.1 version in Jira as well? > > > > > > >Thanks > >Raminder > > > > > >On Apr 9, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > > > >> Tested the portal and it works again. Thanks for fixing it. > >> > >> > >> On 6 April 2012 20:37, Mahadevan, Venkat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Fixed the issue. Please let me know otherwise. > >>> > >>> > >>> Venkat > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4/6/12 9:19 AM, "Mahadevan, Venkat" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jasha, I will work on RAVE-541 and fix the issue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 4/6/12 6:26 AM, "Jasha Joachimsthal" <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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.or > >>>>>>>> g > >>>>>>>> /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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
