>-----Original Message----- >From: Jasha Joachimsthal [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:22 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.10 Release Candidate > >On 9 April 2012 18:03, Raminderjeet Singh <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> 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. >> > >Did you get the OOM when doing release:prepare or release:perform? If it >happens during release:perform there's no need to delete the tag in svn. >release:prepare creates the tag, release:perform makes the artifacts from >that tag.
Any time you are doing a release, be sure to follow step 1 of the release process [1] [1] : http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html > > >> >> >> 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 >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
