On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 01:53:28PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: > >>> On 6/19/2008 at 2:04 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlo > Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 09:33:26AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: > > > > Brad, by the time you made this statement : > > > > * AIX users had no working build > > * Fedora Linux ppc64 users wouldn't be able to build a package > > * OpenSuSE 10.3 users are still figuring out where to get a working > > libconfuse > > * MacOS X 10.5 users have no working build, and users of older versions have > > a broken libconfuse dependency and most likely a broken build > > * HPUX users have no working build > > * OpenBSD amd64 users will get their modules installed in an odd directory > > that doesn't exist otherwise in their systems > > * DragonFlyBSD users had never had the luxury of having a working snapshot > > to use for testing. > > * Solaris users trying to reuse the libapr that comes with apache will have > > a broken build because of an internal header conflict. > > * CentOS 4 users are getting used to the idea of using some packages they > > had > > been told are not safe, as dependencies. > > * Windows users had only a static build to use. > > > > what makes you think ganglia 3.1 is ready to get out of the door? > > I disagree.
I am sorry. > Release early, release often. For whom?, who is going to be able to use it when it is so difficult to even get a working build in so many platforms (including also widely used Linux distributions). And no, I am not saying we should hold the release indefinitely until every single one of those obscure platforms work perfectly, but that we are yet to provide a release snapshot that can be considered stable enough for testing and that has been used as such for anyone other than the few of us that know the voodoo required to get a working ganglia-3.1 package built and installed. > There will always be issues to resolve. How long do we want to wait for > somebody to step up, identify and fix all of the issues. We promise them an alpha, and a beta and produced none, how can you expect anyone to step up and fix any issues? never mind the fact that all the snapshots we produced wouldn't even work for one of the platforms (DragonFlyBSD) that is meant to be supported as stated in the release notes. http://www.mail-archive.com/ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04034.html > >> We created the Ganglia 3.1.x stable branch almost 2 months ago and have > >> been > > working towards a release since then. > > > > and in those 2 months we hadn't been able to get enough people interested in > > testing this branch to ensure all the designs are sound and that the package > > is ready to be going to beta. > > Correct, however waiting longer for interested people to show up isn't going > to solve the problem. true, we need to help them have the tools they need to be able to solve those problems. snapshots from the 3.1 branch are now available in : http://tapir.sajinet.com.pe/ganglia/ and hopefully that means that anyone that wants to test ganglia 3.1 will be able to do that now without having to have a full development environment. > >> I think it is time that we actually create a Ganglia 3.1 release candidate > > which can be tested and ultimately determined to be our Ganglia 3.1 > > official > > release. > > > > did I miss the alphas and the betas? > > Why do we need X number of alphas or betas before we release? because calling a revision number an "alpha" or "beta" tells the users of that package what they should expect from it, and what they are meant to be doing with it and under what circumstances. it also helps the distribution people identify when they should jump in and provide their own users with the means to help on testing that package. > >> The STATUS file has been cleared out of all backports and there are no > > show-stoppers that would prevent us from releasing 3.1. > > > > the STATUS file shows 1 show stopper, which as you said is not a regression, > > but needs to be addressed so that distributions will be able to carry on > > with > > packages of ganglia 3.1 when it gets out of the door. > > No, the issue stated in the STATUS file is not a regression and that didn't > stop Ganglia 3.0 from being very successful. right, but somehow we didn't find out until recently, it is irresponsible to not do anything about it, specially considering that ganglia-3.0 was banned from Debian just because of licensing issues. > Despite being discussed on the mailing list, nobody has stepped up to fix the > issue. So until somebody does step up, what do we do? Holding the rest of > Ganglia 3.1 back waiting for a previously existing issue to be resolved, > doesn't help. contacted Ron Velzeboer (the author for TemplatePower), and debated with him the possibility of either granting us an exception or a BSD compatible copy of the library. he is willing to work with us in a solution but will need some more time to think it through (1 week, after he returns from some planned holidays) Carlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
