26 May
2011
26 May
'11
5:03 a.m.
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very
badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported
for it.
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the state of the tests.
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
WDYT?
Caleb
26 May
26 May
8:13 a.m.
+1
Thanks,
Marius
On 05/26/2011 06:03 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported
for it.
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the state of the tests.
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
WDYT?
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:25 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 23:03 -0400, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported
for it.
I think these should be fixed, because they prove regressions (or are at
least a warning for a regression).
While I agree with timeboxing, I think this is slightly too much, as in
we shouldn't push a release with regressions just because we were late
with the milestones.
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the state
of the tests.
see above.
Thanks,
Anca
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
WDYT?
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:44 a.m.
On 05/26/2011 04:25 AM, Luca Anca wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 23:03 -0400, Caleb James DeLisle
wrote:
When do you propose to release?
Caleb
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported
for it.
I think these should be fixed, because they prove regressions (or are at
least a warning for a regression).
While I agree with timeboxing, I think this is slightly too much, as in
we shouldn't push a release with regressions just because we were late
with the milestones. 3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the
state of the tests.
see above.
Thanks,
Anca
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
WDYT?
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:51 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 04:44 -0400, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
On 05/26/2011 04:25 AM, Luca Anca wrote:
I'm not necessarily against the release date, I just don't think that
this policy about tests is a good one. If we manage to have no tests
failing on the build by Monday, Monday is fine.
We can target Monday with an extension to, say, Thursday or next Monday
if we need time to fix regressions.
Unfortunately though, I'm not able to have a 1 on this proposal, be it a
+ or -, because I won't be able to spend time on the development of this
cycle.
Thanks,
Anca
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 23:03 -0400, Caleb James
DeLisle wrote:
When do you propose to release? I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported
for it.
I think these should be fixed, because they prove regressions (or are at
least a warning for a regression).
While I agree with timeboxing, I think this is slightly too much, as in
we shouldn't push a release with regressions just because we were late
with the milestones.
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the
state of the tests.
see above.
Thanks,
Anca
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
WDYT?
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:46 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [proposal] Release 3.1-RC1 on scheduled release date.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 05:03, Caleb James DeLisle
<calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported
for it.
Ok for flickering test but If what you are proposing is doing a
release with known regressions it's a big -1 from me. I prefer
reverting a commit that caused the regression, we can't release a new
version and just don't care about regressions which is the worst thing
possible IMO.
It's not like we were talking about a milestone...
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the state
of the tests.
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
WDYT?
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
12:06 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [proposal] Release 3.1-RC1 on scheduled release date.
Hi Caleb,
On May 26, 2011, at 5:03 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
+1
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail
must be @Ignored and a bug reported for it.
+1, we should also add a keyword so that we can easily filter them out (I propose
"quarantined" or "flickering")
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the state
of the tests.
-1. For any failing test we must verify if the problem is a test issue or a real bug. If
it's a real bug we need to analyze the criticity. If it's critical we
shouldn't release without fixing it. If it's not critical then we can release but
we'll need to add this information in the Release notes if it's a regression.
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick
response on this.
Thanks
-Vincent
2:44 p.m.
On 05/26/2011 06:06 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi Caleb,
On May 26, 2011, at 5:03 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I am happy to hold the release until you give the okay.
I volunteer to get the storage tests running.
Caleb
I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the
scheduled date. We (I) have lagged very badly with
the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
I would like to do the following:
1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working on stability.
+1
2. Any test which is observed to pass and then
fail must be @Ignored and a bug reported for it.
+1, we should also add a keyword so that we can easily filter them out (I propose
"quarantined" or "flickering")
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the
state of the tests.
-1. For any failing test we must verify if the problem is a test issue or a real bug. If
it's a real bug we need to analyze the criticity. If it's critical we
shouldn't release without fixing it. If it's not critical then we can release but
we'll need to add this information in the Release notes if it's a regression.
Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick
response on this.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
30 May
30 May
9:14 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [proposal] Release 3.1-RC1 on scheduled release date.
I follow Thomas and Vincent on this.
We should not hustled the release just to be on schedule.
Denis
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 14:44, Caleb James DeLisle <calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com
wrote:
On 05/26/2011 06:06 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
a real
bug. If it's a real bug we need to analyze the criticity. If it's
critical we shouldn't release without fixing it. If it's not critical then
we can release but we'll need to add this information in the Release notes
if it's a regression.
I am happy to hold the release until you give the okay.
I volunteer to get the storage tests running.
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
Hi Caleb,
On May 26, 2011, at 5:03 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the scheduled date. We (I)
have
lagged very badly with
> the milestone release dates but now is the
time to get this in order.
> I would like to do the following:
>
> 1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working
on
stability.
+1
> 2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and
a bug
reported for it.
+1, we should also add a keyword so that we can easily filter them out (I
propose
"quarantined" or "flickering")
3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the
state of the tests.
-1. For any failing test we must verify if the problem is a test issue or Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick
response on this.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
9:26 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [proposal] Release 3.1-RC1 on scheduled release date.
On May 30, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
I follow Thomas and Vincent on this.
We should not hustled the release just to be on schedule.
I didn't say this ;)
We need to be on schedule and do time boxing.
Same as Thomas, I agree about rollbacking stuff that break tests. Committers should never
break tests or if they do they need to fix that immediately and not wait several days.
Since we know we have some stabilization issues it's also good to do what Caleb has
started, ie start the stabilization a few days before the release and monitor commits and
roll them back if they break anything, possibly even branch at that time to isolate the
release to come.
Thanks
-Vincent
Denis
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 14:44, Caleb James DeLisle <calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com
wrote:
>
>
> On 05/26/2011 06:06 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>> Hi Caleb,
>>
>> On May 26, 2011, at 5:03 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to propose releasing 3.1-RC1 on the scheduled date. We (I)
> have lagged very badly with
>>> the milestone release dates but now is the time to get this in order.
>>> I would like to do the following:
>>>
>>> 1. Freeze on new features effective immediately. Everybody start working
> on stability.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> 2. Any test which is observed to pass and then fail must be @Ignored and
> a bug reported for it.
>>
>> +1, we should also add a keyword so that we can easily filter them out (I
> propose "quarantined" or "flickering")
>>
>>> 3. Release happens on Monday regardless of the state of the tests.
>>
>> -1. For any failing test we must verify if the problem is a test issue or
> a real bug. If it's a real bug we need to analyze the criticity. If it's
> critical we shouldn't release without fixing it. If it's not critical then
> we can release but we'll need to add this information in the Release notes
> if it's a regression.
>
> I am happy to hold the release until you give the okay.
> I volunteer to get the storage tests running.
>
> Caleb
>
>>
>>> Since the release date is upon us, I need a quick response on this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
4858
days inactive
4862
days old
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Denis Gervalle -
Luca Anca -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol