On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:28:06PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: > >>> On 8/16/2008 at 11:26 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlo > Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:48:50AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: > > > >> Due mainly to the segfault patch, I am proposing that we tag and roll a > >> testing tarball of 3.1.1 within the next week > > > > agree, but even if we agreed before to the process of releasing requiring > > a tag and a stable package, I suspect (specially based on the recent history > > with 3.1.0) that the process will be instead : > > > > * release a snapshot package for testing (3.1.0.1696?) and wait for feedback > > * tag 3.1.1 (hopefully after no changes were required from the testing cycle > > and except for the required changes in configure to make it a stable > > package) and then wait for the 2 weeks. > > I'm not sure why an extra snapshot is necessary. The above two steps are > the same thing just with different revision numbers.
and you probably already forgot how the agreed plan of skipping 3.1.0 to avoid getting development versions that had higher numbers than a release version that we agreed to was scrapped at the last moment just because apparently naming the first release of 3.1 as 3.1.0 was the "Right Thing (TM)" to do. don't worry I'd updated the wiki page since so that it is at least consistent with what we ended up doing. > Basically the way it works, as outlined on the wiki > (http://ganglia.wiki.sourceforge.net/ganglia_works) guess you mean, the way we agreed it should work (which was really just the same scheme that apache used for the 2.0 branch of the apache server). agree with you though that whatever we do should be documented in that page, but that is not the case so far, and unless we are willing to get a package out named 3.1.1 which might had to be thrown away without ever being released because it has a regression on it or because a mistake was done when tagging the branch or preparing the package (which seems to be very common) we will never do. > a tag is created in SVN that carries the proposed release version number. > The purpose for this is so that every release (whether official or > unofficial testing release) can be tracked and reproducible. Then a > tarball is rolled from the tag and posted in the ganglia testing area > for download. and that is why before that tag and package is prepared, the release name has to be committed, otherwise the official package will had to be changed from the one that is posted from testing. of course doing something as simple as getting a release name shouldn't be a reason to delay a release but for whatever reason it has taken already more than 2 weeks to decide since 3.1.0 was released. > But so far there is no evidence that a two week testing period is > insufficient. If you define a "testing period" as a period where we wait for "someone" to get the package, deploy it in production and tell us why it broke his setup then no amount of testing will be sufficient, and so choosing and arbitrary 2 weeks is as good as anything else, if that is what you mean. There is IMHO enough evidence to probe that 2 weeks is too little, unless you are to assume that we are not doing any testing during those 2 weeks, if you consider that the day of the release tcpconn was reported unstable in BUG196, and 5 days later two other showstopper bugs were reported for 3.1.0 (BUG197 and BUG198) with at least one of them being behind why we have to rush to release 3.1.1 Carlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
