You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@river.apache.org by Tom Hobbs <tv...@googlemail.com> on 2011/07/01 13:08:23 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release River 2.2.0
"next release" being 2.2.0 or 2.2.1?
I would still like to release 2.2.0 as-is with a nicer-to-build (and better
docs on running the tests!) coming very soon after as 2.2.1.
Exactly how long do we need to leave the voting open for anyway?
Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging via
mobile device.
On 1 Jul 2011 12:01, "Peter" <ji...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> You made a valid point about compiling and first impressions.
>
> We should make a point of getting the next release out soon with better
build and test instructions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.
>
> ----- Original message -----
>> I'm going to have limited e-mail access (iPhone only) for the next few
>> hours.
>>
>> If our incubator space is about to go away, maybe we should shove this
>> one out the door, for the sake of the better binaries and having a top
>> level release, and then produce 2.2.1 ASAP to clean up the loose ends.
>>
>> Patricia
>>
>>
>> On 6/30/2011 6:54 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> > The build is clean if the classes are removed. At least one QA test
>> > fails. That is why I suggested as an alternative fix removing the two
>> > classes and skipping the failing test.
>> >
>> > Patricia
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/30/2011 6:32 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>> > > Would modifying the build instructions help? And also raising a Jira
>> > > to fix
>> > > later.
>> > >
>> > > I'm keen to get this release out, obviously. But like you say, bad
first
>> > > impressions do leave a lingering bad feel.
>> > >
>> > > how does the build fail with the removed classes?
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > >
>> > > Tom
>> > >
>> > > Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging
via
>> > > mobile device.
>> > >
>> > > On 30 Jun 2011 14:12, "Patricia Shanahan"<pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>> > > > On 6/30/2011 1:42 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>> > > > > On 30-06-11 10:12, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>> > > > > > Actually, lets have a proper vote thread.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Release the artifacts 2.2.0 which can be found in
>> > > > > > http://river.apache.org/~thobbs/river?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > +1 Peter Firmstone
>> > > > > > +1 Tom Hobbs
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of
messaging
>> > > > > > via
>> > > > > > mobile device.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1 release early, release often!
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > -0
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't like releasing with source code that does not compile
following
>> > > > the build instructions in the release. It creates a bad first
impression
>> > > > for anyone interested in the source code. I would like to see the
build
>> > > > instructions updated, NameServiceImpl changed to be 1.5 compatible,
and
>> > > > have an opportunity to test the new build instructions.
>> > > >
>> > > > On the other hand, the release does get better code into the hands
of
>> > > > people who are only interested in the binary.
>> > > >
>> > > > I realize my negative vote is only symbolic. Three positive votes
are
>> > > > enough to permit a release to go out.
>> > > >
>> > > > Patricia
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release River 2.2.0
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
According to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html:
"Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to
provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate
regardless of their geographic locations."
I read "next release" as meaning the release after the one we are voting on.
Patricia
On 7/1/2011 4:08 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> "next release" being 2.2.0 or 2.2.1?
>
> I would still like to release 2.2.0 as-is with a nicer-to-build (and better
> docs on running the tests!) coming very soon after as 2.2.1.
>
> Exactly how long do we need to leave the voting open for anyway?
>
>
>
> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging via
> mobile device.
>
> On 1 Jul 2011 12:01, "Peter"<ji...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>> You made a valid point about compiling and first impressions.
>>
>> We should make a point of getting the next release out soon with better
> build and test instructions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>> ----- Original message -----
>>> I'm going to have limited e-mail access (iPhone only) for the next few
>>> hours.
>>>
>>> If our incubator space is about to go away, maybe we should shove this
>>> one out the door, for the sake of the better binaries and having a top
>>> level release, and then produce 2.2.1 ASAP to clean up the loose ends.
>>>
>>> Patricia
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/30/2011 6:54 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> The build is clean if the classes are removed. At least one QA test
>>>> fails. That is why I suggested as an alternative fix removing the two
>>>> classes and skipping the failing test.
>>>>
>>>> Patricia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/30/2011 6:32 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>>>> Would modifying the build instructions help? And also raising a Jira
>>>>> to fix
>>>>> later.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm keen to get this release out, obviously. But like you say, bad
> first
>>>>> impressions do leave a lingering bad feel.
>>>>>
>>>>> how does the build fail with the removed classes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging
> via
>>>>> mobile device.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30 Jun 2011 14:12, "Patricia Shanahan"<pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/2011 1:42 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30-06-11 10:12, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually, lets have a proper vote thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release the artifacts 2.2.0 which can be found in
>>>>>>>> http://river.apache.org/~thobbs/river?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 Peter Firmstone
>>>>>>>> +1 Tom Hobbs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of
> messaging
>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>> mobile device.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 release early, release often!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't like releasing with source code that does not compile
> following
>>>>>> the build instructions in the release. It creates a bad first
> impression
>>>>>> for anyone interested in the source code. I would like to see the
> build
>>>>>> instructions updated, NameServiceImpl changed to be 1.5 compatible,
> and
>>>>>> have an opportunity to test the new build instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, the release does get better code into the hands
> of
>>>>>> people who are only interested in the binary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize my negative vote is only symbolic. Three positive votes
> are
>>>>>> enough to permit a release to go out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patricia
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release River 2.2.0
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
+1 to release
Checked the apache-river-2.2.0.tar.gz package with SHA1 sum
7c0ec4a2a884f079e7349579fd8bebcad3c6066f from
http://people.apache.org/~thobbs/river/.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Tom Hobbs <tv...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Exactly how long do we need to leave the voting open for anyway?
72 hours is the normal time for a vote thread.
BR,
Jukak