You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@climate.apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2015/09/23 19:10:02 UTC
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Hi Kyo,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <de...@climate.apache.org> wrote:
>
> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull
> requests under pending now.
> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyo
>
>
Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE
is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015.
The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1
release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that 20
days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code contributions
have arrived during that window.
Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to
the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical bug
which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am
very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of a
functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the
1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
Does this make sense?
Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time window?
Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
Thanks
Lewis
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>.
It's not the PMC's job to force people to participate. That's why we can't
wait forever for people to comment. Look at how many people we have on the
PMC vs how many people we have participating in this vote thread. We would
never get a release out if we did that! As for what version increases mean
I would suggest checking out [1]. Adding new features, fixes, and
improvements != code doesn't work. Incremental progress is important. If we
released once everything worked exactly the way we want this project
wouldn't have even reached the point of being open source yet. Closing
ourselves off into a corner so we can make our code perfect is not terribly
conducive to collaborative development.
There have been big changes that have been made since our last release ~8
months ago. Certainly big enough changes to warrant a major version bump.
Is everything perfect? Nope, of course not. Never will be. Doesn't mean we
haven't hit a milestone that warrants a release.
[1] http://semver.org/
-- Jimmy
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lee, Kyo (398L) <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>
wrote:
> I am so sorry that I was too busy to read all the discussion and VOTE
> threads.
>
> I am now raising issues on the decision made early September. I know that
> I should have lead this discussion earlier.
> Whenever we start voting for future releases, why don’t we make it sure
> that all of those who have made contributions since the last release
> recognize the vote and release?
> In offline meetings, Jinwon has suggested releasing a version with working
> RCMES for a long time. I totally agree with him.
> Upgrading from version 0.5 to 1.0.0 looks like a major update whereas
> 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 should be trivial updates.
> How can we release the codes that do not currently work?
>
> Thanks,
> Kyo
>
> On 9/23/15, 1:43 PM, "mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce"
> <mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of joyce@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Those seem like great features Kyo! I still don't understand why that
> >can't
> >be in 1.0.1 outside of an arbitrary decision that they should be in 1.0.0
> >though. The discuss thread for 1.0.0 was started Aug 31, the RC for 1.0.0
> >was posted Sep 3 with the VOTE thread. Seems a bit ridiculous to me to
> >halt
> >a release for features that were opened in pull requests in last 1-2 days
> >especially when there has been ample time with the original discuss thread
> >and the length that this vote has been around to raise the idea earlier.
> >
> >+1 from me to finish the release as is and roll a quick 1.0.1 to get these
> >great features Kyo mentioned out in a release once they've been
> >integrated.
> >Should be easy to get the 3 +1s as well since you're around to help too
> >Kyo!
> >
> >
> >-- Jimmy
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Lee, Kyo (398L) <Huikyo.Lee@jpl.nasa.gov
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I play devil¹s advocate and argue that version 1.0.0 release is a good
> >> chance to complete Pull Request 666, 672 and 674 and make the ocw-cli
> >>work
> >> well with the datasets described on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kyo
> >>
> >> On 9/23/15, 10:44 AM, "mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce"
> >> <mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of joyce@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kyo,
> >> >
> >> >Do you have a specific pull request(s) that you think need to be in the
> >> >1.0.0 release and couldn't wait until the next release? That might
> >>help us
> >> >get started moving in the direction to getting everything resolved!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-- Jimmy
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>
> >>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are
> >> >> eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a
> >>product
> >> >> there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how
> >> >>easy
> >> >> it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful
> >>features
> >> >> that come along.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest.
> >> >>
> >> >> -- Jimmy
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L)
> >> >><Huikyo.Lee@jpl.nasa.gov
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi Lewis,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
> >> >>> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the
> >>datasets
> >> >>> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
> >> >>> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To
> >> >>>achieve
> >> >>> this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
> >> >>> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
> >> >>> working RCMES is really important.
> >> >>> Just my two cents.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Kyo
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney"
> >> >>><le...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >Hi Kyo,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM,
> >><de...@climate.apache.org>
> >> >>> >wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important
> >>pull
> >> >>> >> requests under pending now.
> >> >>> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the
> >>release.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Thanks,
> >> >>> >> Kyo
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
> >> >>> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following.
> >>This
> >> >>>VOTE
> >> >>> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd,
> >> >>>2015.
> >> >>> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the
> >>1.0.0 #1
> >> >>> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind
> >> >>>that
> >> >>> 20
> >> >>> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
> >> >>> >contributions
> >> >>> >have arrived during that window.
> >> >>> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as
> >> >>>commits to
> >> >>> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a
> >> >>>critical
> >> >>> >bug
> >> >>> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable,
> >>then I
> >> >>>am
> >> >>> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the
> >> >>>release of
> >> >>> >a
> >> >>> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented
> >>by
> >> >>>the
> >> >>> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
> >> >>> >Does this make sense?
> >> >>> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
> >> >>> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter
> >>time
> >> >>> >window?
> >> >>> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
> >> >>> >Thanks
> >> >>> >Lewis
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by "Lee, Kyo (398L)" <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
I am so sorry that I was too busy to read all the discussion and VOTE
threads.
I am now raising issues on the decision made early September. I know that
I should have lead this discussion earlier.
Whenever we start voting for future releases, why don’t we make it sure
that all of those who have made contributions since the last release
recognize the vote and release?
In offline meetings, Jinwon has suggested releasing a version with working
RCMES for a long time. I totally agree with him.
Upgrading from version 0.5 to 1.0.0 looks like a major update whereas
1.0.0 to 1.0.1 should be trivial updates.
How can we release the codes that do not currently work?
Thanks,
Kyo
On 9/23/15, 1:43 PM, "mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce"
<mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of joyce@apache.org> wrote:
>Those seem like great features Kyo! I still don't understand why that
>can't
>be in 1.0.1 outside of an arbitrary decision that they should be in 1.0.0
>though. The discuss thread for 1.0.0 was started Aug 31, the RC for 1.0.0
>was posted Sep 3 with the VOTE thread. Seems a bit ridiculous to me to
>halt
>a release for features that were opened in pull requests in last 1-2 days
>especially when there has been ample time with the original discuss thread
>and the length that this vote has been around to raise the idea earlier.
>
>+1 from me to finish the release as is and roll a quick 1.0.1 to get these
>great features Kyo mentioned out in a release once they've been
>integrated.
>Should be easy to get the 3 +1s as well since you're around to help too
>Kyo!
>
>
>-- Jimmy
>
>On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Lee, Kyo (398L) <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>
>wrote:
>
>> I play devil¹s advocate and argue that version 1.0.0 release is a good
>> chance to complete Pull Request 666, 672 and 674 and make the ocw-cli
>>work
>> well with the datasets described on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyo
>>
>> On 9/23/15, 10:44 AM, "mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce"
>> <mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of joyce@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Kyo,
>> >
>> >Do you have a specific pull request(s) that you think need to be in the
>> >1.0.0 release and couldn't wait until the next release? That might
>>help us
>> >get started moving in the direction to getting everything resolved!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-- Jimmy
>> >
>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >> So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are
>> >> eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a
>>product
>> >> there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how
>> >>easy
>> >> it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful
>>features
>> >> that come along.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest.
>> >>
>> >> -- Jimmy
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L)
>> >><Huikyo.Lee@jpl.nasa.gov
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Lewis,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
>> >>> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the
>>datasets
>> >>> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
>> >>> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To
>> >>>achieve
>> >>> this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
>> >>> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
>> >>> working RCMES is really important.
>> >>> Just my two cents.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Kyo
>> >>>
>> >>> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney"
>> >>><le...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Hi Kyo,
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM,
>><de...@climate.apache.org>
>> >>> >wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important
>>pull
>> >>> >> requests under pending now.
>> >>> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the
>>release.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Thanks,
>> >>> >> Kyo
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
>> >>> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following.
>>This
>> >>>VOTE
>> >>> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd,
>> >>>2015.
>> >>> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the
>>1.0.0 #1
>> >>> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind
>> >>>that
>> >>> 20
>> >>> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
>> >>> >contributions
>> >>> >have arrived during that window.
>> >>> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as
>> >>>commits to
>> >>> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a
>> >>>critical
>> >>> >bug
>> >>> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable,
>>then I
>> >>>am
>> >>> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the
>> >>>release of
>> >>> >a
>> >>> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented
>>by
>> >>>the
>> >>> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
>> >>> >Does this make sense?
>> >>> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
>> >>> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter
>>time
>> >>> >window?
>> >>> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
>> >>> >Thanks
>> >>> >Lewis
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>.
Those seem like great features Kyo! I still don't understand why that can't
be in 1.0.1 outside of an arbitrary decision that they should be in 1.0.0
though. The discuss thread for 1.0.0 was started Aug 31, the RC for 1.0.0
was posted Sep 3 with the VOTE thread. Seems a bit ridiculous to me to halt
a release for features that were opened in pull requests in last 1-2 days
especially when there has been ample time with the original discuss thread
and the length that this vote has been around to raise the idea earlier.
+1 from me to finish the release as is and roll a quick 1.0.1 to get these
great features Kyo mentioned out in a release once they've been integrated.
Should be easy to get the 3 +1s as well since you're around to help too Kyo!
-- Jimmy
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Lee, Kyo (398L) <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>
wrote:
> I play devil¹s advocate and argue that version 1.0.0 release is a good
> chance to complete Pull Request 666, 672 and 674 and make the ocw-cli work
> well with the datasets described on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
>
> Thanks,
> Kyo
>
> On 9/23/15, 10:44 AM, "mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce"
> <mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of joyce@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Kyo,
> >
> >Do you have a specific pull request(s) that you think need to be in the
> >1.0.0 release and couldn't wait until the next release? That might help us
> >get started moving in the direction to getting everything resolved!
> >
> >
> >
> >-- Jimmy
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are
> >> eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a product
> >> there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how
> >>easy
> >> it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful features
> >> that come along.
> >>
> >> I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest.
> >>
> >> -- Jimmy
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L)
> >><Huikyo.Lee@jpl.nasa.gov
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Lewis,
> >>>
> >>> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
> >>> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets
> >>> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
> >>> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To
> >>>achieve
> >>> this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
> >>> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
> >>> working RCMES is really important.
> >>> Just my two cents.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kyo
> >>>
> >>> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney"
> >>><le...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Hi Kyo,
> >>> >
> >>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <de...@climate.apache.org>
> >>> >wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull
> >>> >> requests under pending now.
> >>> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >> Kyo
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
> >>> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This
> >>>VOTE
> >>> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd,
> >>>2015.
> >>> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1
> >>> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind
> >>>that
> >>> 20
> >>> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
> >>> >contributions
> >>> >have arrived during that window.
> >>> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as
> >>>commits to
> >>> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a
> >>>critical
> >>> >bug
> >>> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I
> >>>am
> >>> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the
> >>>release of
> >>> >a
> >>> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by
> >>>the
> >>> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
> >>> >Does this make sense?
> >>> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
> >>> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time
> >>> >window?
> >>> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
> >>> >Thanks
> >>> >Lewis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by "Lee, Kyo (398L)" <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
I play devil¹s advocate and argue that version 1.0.0 release is a good
chance to complete Pull Request 666, 672 and 674 and make the ocw-cli work
well with the datasets described on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
Thanks,
Kyo
On 9/23/15, 10:44 AM, "mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of Michael Joyce"
<mltjoyce@gmail.com on behalf of joyce@apache.org> wrote:
>Kyo,
>
>Do you have a specific pull request(s) that you think need to be in the
>1.0.0 release and couldn't wait until the next release? That might help us
>get started moving in the direction to getting everything resolved!
>
>
>
>-- Jimmy
>
>On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are
>> eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a product
>> there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how
>>easy
>> it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful features
>> that come along.
>>
>> I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest.
>>
>> -- Jimmy
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L)
>><Huikyo.Lee@jpl.nasa.gov
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>
>>> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
>>> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets
>>> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
>>> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To
>>>achieve
>>> this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
>>> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
>>> working RCMES is really important.
>>> Just my two cents.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyo
>>>
>>> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney"
>>><le...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi Kyo,
>>> >
>>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <de...@climate.apache.org>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull
>>> >> requests under pending now.
>>> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Kyo
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
>>> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This
>>>VOTE
>>> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd,
>>>2015.
>>> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1
>>> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind
>>>that
>>> 20
>>> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
>>> >contributions
>>> >have arrived during that window.
>>> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as
>>>commits to
>>> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a
>>>critical
>>> >bug
>>> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I
>>>am
>>> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the
>>>release of
>>> >a
>>> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by
>>>the
>>> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
>>> >Does this make sense?
>>> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
>>> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time
>>> >window?
>>> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
>>> >Thanks
>>> >Lewis
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>.
Kyo,
Do you have a specific pull request(s) that you think need to be in the
1.0.0 release and couldn't wait until the next release? That might help us
get started moving in the direction to getting everything resolved!
-- Jimmy
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are
> eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a product
> there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how easy
> it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful features
> that come along.
>
> I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest.
>
> -- Jimmy
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L) <Huikyo.Lee@jpl.nasa.gov
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Lewis,
>>
>> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
>> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets
>> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
>> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To achieve
>> this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
>> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
>> working RCMES is really important.
>> Just my two cents.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyo
>>
>> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" <le...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Kyo,
>> >
>> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <de...@climate.apache.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull
>> >> requests under pending now.
>> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Kyo
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
>> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE
>> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015.
>> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1
>> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that
>> 20
>> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
>> >contributions
>> >have arrived during that window.
>> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to
>> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical
>> >bug
>> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am
>> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of
>> >a
>> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the
>> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
>> >Does this make sense?
>> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
>> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time
>> >window?
>> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
>> >Thanks
>> >Lewis
>>
>>
>
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>.
So why can't we roll a release immediately after the open PRs are
eventually resolved? We gladly support RCMES but the state of a product
there shouldn't be hindering an OCW release, especially not given how easy
it is to roll another release if we want to include some useful features
that come along.
I'm not seeing a reason to hold up a release here to be honest.
-- Jimmy
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Lee, Kyo (398L) <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>
wrote:
> Hi Lewis,
>
> I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
> I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets
> mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
> At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To achieve
> this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
> Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
> working RCMES is really important.
> Just my two cents.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyo
>
> On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Kyo,
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <de...@climate.apache.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull
> >> requests under pending now.
> >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kyo
> >>
> >>
> >Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
> >I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE
> >is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015.
> >The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1
> >release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that 20
> >days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
> >contributions
> >have arrived during that window.
> >Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to
> >the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical
> >bug
> >which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am
> >very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of
> >a
> >functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the
> >1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
> >Does this make sense?
> >Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
> >provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time
> >window?
> >Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
> >Thanks
> >Lewis
>
>
Re: dev Digest 23 Sep 2015 16:49:12 -0000 Issue 411
Posted by "Lee, Kyo (398L)" <Hu...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Lewis,
I think OCW has some critical bugs to be fixed.
I am not sure who else is testing OCW libraries with all the datasets
mentioned on http://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov
At least, the RCMES based on OCW is about to reach a milestone. To achieve
this, several people have worked hard during the summer.
Rather than releasing OCW in a short time window, delivering it with
working RCMES is really important.
Just my two cents.
Thanks,
Kyo
On 9/23/15, 10:10 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Hi Kyo,
>
>On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <de...@climate.apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull
>> requests under pending now.
>> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyo
>>
>>
>Thanks for taking the time to VOTE.
>I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE
>is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015.
>The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1
>release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that 20
>days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code
>contributions
>have arrived during that window.
>Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to
>the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical
>bug
>which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am
>very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of
>a
>functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the
>1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above.
>Does this make sense?
>Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us
>provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time
>window?
>Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo.
>Thanks
>Lewis