Thanks Jasha. I appended CHANGELOG file with Jira's from 0.10.1 and 0.10.
Another thing to careful about release is you may face a failure while release (like i faced out of memory even MAVEN_OPTS). Please follow http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html RECOVERING FROM A VETOED RELEASE and delete the tag. On Apr 9, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > On 9 April 2012 17:24, Franklin, Matthew B. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4/9/12 11:10 AM, "Jasha Joachimsthal" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> +1 >> > > Created and added it as fix version for RAVE-541, RAVE-542 and RAVE-553. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
