You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/12 18:02:41 UTC
What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
We have fixed some important issues lately in 2.0-RC1 :
DIRMINA-749 : We cannot anymore inject more than one CODEC in the chain.
DIRMINA-678 : NioProcessor 100% CPU usage on Linux (epoll selector bug)
DIRMINA-650 : Mina server does not recieve all data sent by client using
SSLSocketFactory
Isn't it time for a new release ? Should we call it 2.0.0 ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: What various priorities mean in Mina's Jira was: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0
: status
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> The reason that I asked was that it would be nice if one could look at
> the roadmap and discover what the group thought needed to be fixed
> before a release could happen. It would also be nice to look at the
> roadmap and be able to pick out those issues that are being time-boxed
> and potentially left out of the release.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-742 is a serious issue. We
have to reproduce it, and then analyze why we enter into a deadlock.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
Re: What various priorities mean in Mina's Jira was: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0
: status
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:10:21 -0800,
>>>> "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering, what does the various priorities mean in Mina's
>>>>> Jira?
>>>>>
>>>> Well nothing special.
>>>
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> The reason that I asked was that it would be nice if one could look
>>> at the roadmap and discover what the group thought needed to be
>>> fixed before a release could happen. It would also be nice to look
>>> at the roadmap and be able to pick out those issues that are being
>>> time-boxed and potentially left out of the release.
>> This is what I'm currently doing. There are many issues in the
>> 'unscheduled' state which needs to be moved to a version in the
>> roadmap, and also many JIRA's priority need to be set to the correct
>> level. I agree that some missing Javadoc can be set to critical, as
>> soon as it's not considered as a bug, and also that uf some log
>> generates a NPE, hen t shuld not be considered as critical.
>>
>> I'm currently processing the bug list to update those informations.
>
> Sorry, I'm not prescribing what we should do for this release but am
> trying to make more concrete what the various priorities mean in
> Mina's Jira. Jullien's reply implied, to me, that there was none and
> that it was not important. My reply addressed this personal perception.
I would say that there are none, yep, but IMO, it's important to
moderate them and attribute the correct priority to JIRAs in the close
future...
Re: What various priorities mean in Mina's Jira was: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Emmanuel Lcharny wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>>
>>> Le Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:10:21 -0800,
>>> "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I was wondering, what does the various priorities mean in Mina's
>>>> Jira?
>>>>
>>> Well nothing special.
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>> The reason that I asked was that it would be nice if one could look
>> at the roadmap and discover what the group thought needed to be
>> fixed before a release could happen. It would also be nice to look
>> at the roadmap and be able to pick out those issues that are being
>> time-boxed and potentially left out of the release.
> This is what I'm currently doing. There are many issues in the
> 'unscheduled' state which needs to be moved to a version in the
> roadmap, and also many JIRA's priority need to be set to the correct
> level. I agree that some missing Javadoc can be set to critical, as
> soon as it's not considered as a bug, and also that uf some log
> generates a NPE, hen t shuld not be considered as critical.
>
> I'm currently processing the bug list to update those informations.
Sorry, I'm not prescribing what we should do for this release but am
trying to make more concrete what the various priorities mean in
Mina's Jira. Jullien's reply implied, to me, that there was none and
that it was not important. My reply addressed this personal perception.
Regards,
Alan
Re: What various priorities mean in Mina's Jira was: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0
: status
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>
>> Le Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:10:21 -0800,
>> "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> I was wondering, what does the various priorities mean in Mina's Jira?
>>>
>> Well nothing special.
>
>
> :)
>
> The reason that I asked was that it would be nice if one could look at
> the roadmap and discover what the group thought needed to be fixed
> before a release could happen. It would also be nice to look at the
> roadmap and be able to pick out those issues that are being time-boxed
> and potentially left out of the release.
This is what I'm currently doing. There are many issues in the
'unscheduled' state which needs to be moved to a version in the roadmap,
and also many JIRA's priority need to be set to the correct level. I
agree that some missing Javadoc can be set to critical, as soon as it's
not considered as a bug, and also that uf some log generates a NPE, hen
t shuld not be considered as critical.
I'm currently processing the bug list to update those informations.
What various priorities mean in Mina's Jira was: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
> Le Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:10:21 -0800,
> "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> a écrit :
>
>> I was wondering, what does the various priorities mean in Mina's
>> Jira?
>>
> Well nothing special.
:)
The reason that I asked was that it would be nice if one could look at
the roadmap and discover what the group thought needed to be fixed
before a release could happen. It would also be nice to look at the
roadmap and be able to pick out those issues that are being time-boxed
and potentially left out of the release.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>.
Le Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:10:21 -0800,
"Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> a écrit :
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:43 AM, Emmanuel Lcharny wrote:
>
> > Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
> >>
> >> On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote:
> >>
> >>> I started a little bug parad yesterday and today, fixed a couple
> >>> of more bugs, and we still have 2 remaining bugs :
> >>> DIRMINA-679 (I'm looking at it)
> >>> DIRMINA-539 : I suggest we postpone or even better tag it as
> >>> "won't fix"
> >>>
> >>> There are also a few pending tasks, 5 of them being about doco.
> >>> Not sure we can address all of them though.
> >>>
> >>> About DIRMINA-707, unless someone wants to implement it, I don't
> >>> think it will be part of MINE 2.0.0
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, there are 33 unscheduled JIRAs open, maybe we would
> >>> like to give them some love...
> >>
> >> I'm busy until the weekend but am happy to help. Should we
> >> timebox the issues and go for a freeze for release on Monday?
> > I will try to do some cleanup on importnat issues we have in the
> > 'not scheduled' section today. Then we can try to either get them
> > fixed or postpone them.
> >
> > IMO, we need to cut a 2.0 asap.
>
> As in cut it sooner than Monday?
>
> I was wondering, what does the various priorities mean in Mina's Jira?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
Well nothing special.
Julien
--
Julien Vermillard
Archean Technologies
http://www.archean.fr
Re: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:43 AM, Emmanuel Lcharny wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote:
>>
>>> I started a little bug parad yesterday and today, fixed a couple
>>> of more bugs, and we still have 2 remaining bugs :
>>> DIRMINA-679 (I'm looking at it)
>>> DIRMINA-539 : I suggest we postpone or even better tag it as
>>> "won't fix"
>>>
>>> There are also a few pending tasks, 5 of them being about doco.
>>> Not sure we can address all of them though.
>>>
>>> About DIRMINA-707, unless someone wants to implement it, I don't
>>> think it will be part of MINE 2.0.0
>>>
>>> Otherwise, there are 33 unscheduled JIRAs open, maybe we would
>>> like to give them some love...
>>
>> I'm busy until the weekend but am happy to help. Should we timebox
>> the issues and go for a freeze for release on Monday?
> I will try to do some cleanup on importnat issues we have in the
> 'not scheduled' section today. Then we can try to either get them
> fixed or postpone them.
>
> IMO, we need to cut a 2.0 asap.
As in cut it sooner than Monday?
I was wondering, what does the various priorities mean in Mina's Jira?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote:
>
>> I started a little bug parad yesterday and today, fixed a couple of
>> more bugs, and we still have 2 remaining bugs :
>> DIRMINA-679 (I'm looking at it)
>> DIRMINA-539 : I suggest we postpone or even better tag it as "won't fix"
>>
>> There are also a few pending tasks, 5 of them being about doco. Not
>> sure we can address all of them though.
>>
>> About DIRMINA-707, unless someone wants to implement it, I don't
>> think it will be part of MINE 2.0.0
>>
>> Otherwise, there are 33 unscheduled JIRAs open, maybe we would like
>> to give them some love...
>
> I'm busy until the weekend but am happy to help. Should we timebox
> the issues and go for a freeze for release on Monday?
I will try to do some cleanup on importnat issues we have in the 'not
scheduled' section today. Then we can try to either get them fixed or
postpone them.
IMO, we need to cut a 2.0 asap.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Emmanuel Lcharny wrote:
> I started a little bug parad yesterday and today, fixed a couple of
> more bugs, and we still have 2 remaining bugs :
> DIRMINA-679 (I'm looking at it)
> DIRMINA-539 : I suggest we postpone or even better tag it as "won't
> fix"
>
> There are also a few pending tasks, 5 of them being about doco. Not
> sure we can address all of them though.
>
> About DIRMINA-707, unless someone wants to implement it, I don't
> think it will be part of MINE 2.0.0
>
> Otherwise, there are 33 unscheduled JIRAs open, maybe we would like
> to give them some love...
I'm busy until the weekend but am happy to help. Should we timebox
the issues and go for a freeze for release on Monday?
Regards,
Alan
Toward 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 : status
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
I started a little bug parad yesterday and today, fixed a couple of more
bugs, and we still have 2 remaining bugs :
DIRMINA-679 (I'm looking at it)
DIRMINA-539 : I suggest we postpone or even better tag it as "won't fix"
There are also a few pending tasks, 5 of them being about doco. Not sure
we can address all of them though.
About DIRMINA-707, unless someone wants to implement it, I don't think
it will be part of MINE 2.0.0
Otherwise, there are 33 unscheduled JIRAs open, maybe we would like to
give them some love...
Re: Re : What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I looked at the issue and don't follow what the problem is. I can't
even find the tests.
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 12, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Edouard De Oliveira wrote:
> I'm sorry but after examining the remaining bug list i think https://issues..apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-711
> must be fixed before issuing 2.0.0 the framework can't fail because
> we just add some logs otherwise we must make this mdc feature
> optionnal
>
> I'm really in favor of releasing 2.0.0 and creating dynamicity in
> the community let just fix 711
>
> -1 (for a short moment i hope)
> Cordialement, Regards,
> -Edouard De Oliveira-
> Blog: http://tedorgwp.free.fr
> WebSite: http://tedorg.free.fr/en/main.php
>
>
>
> ----- Message d'origine ----
> De : Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>
> À : dev@mina.apache.org
> Envoyé le : Mar 12 Janvier 2010, 18 h 35 min 01 s
> Objet : Re: What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
>
> Le Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:02:41 +0100,
> Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> We have fixed some important issues lately in 2.0-RC1 :
>> DIRMINA-749 : We cannot anymore inject more than one CODEC in the
>> chain. DIRMINA-678 : NioProcessor 100% CPU usage on Linux (epoll
>> selector bug) DIRMINA-650 : Mina server does not recieve all data
>> sent by client using SSLSocketFactory
>>
>> Isn't it time for a new release ? Should we call it 2.0.0 ?
>>
>
> +1
>
>
> --
> Julien Vermillard
>
> Archean Technologies
> http://www.archean.fr
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lcharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Edouard De Oliveira a écrit :
> I'm sorry but after examining the remaining bug list i think https://issues..apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-711 must be fixed before issuing 2.0.0 the framework can't fail because we just add some logs otherwise we must make this mdc feature optionnal
>
> I'm really in favor of releasing 2.0.0 and creating dynamicity in the community let just fix 711
>
Ehhh... I checked the code, and I realized that it has been fixed a
while back (may 2009) by Maarten !
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=778025
I closed the issue.
Re : What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Posted by Edouard De Oliveira <do...@yahoo.fr>.
I'm sorry but after examining the remaining bug list i think https://issues..apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-711 must be fixed before issuing 2.0.0 the framework can't fail because we just add some logs otherwise we must make this mdc feature optionnal
I'm really in favor of releasing 2.0.0 and creating dynamicity in the community let just fix 711
-1 (for a short moment i hope)
Cordialement, Regards,
-Edouard De Oliveira-
Blog: http://tedorgwp.free.fr
WebSite: http://tedorg.free.fr/en/main.php
----- Message d'origine ----
De : Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>
À : dev@mina.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mar 12 Janvier 2010, 18 h 35 min 01 s
Objet : Re: What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Le Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:02:41 +0100,
Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> We have fixed some important issues lately in 2.0-RC1 :
> DIRMINA-749 : We cannot anymore inject more than one CODEC in the
> chain. DIRMINA-678 : NioProcessor 100% CPU usage on Linux (epoll
> selector bug) DIRMINA-650 : Mina server does not recieve all data
> sent by client using SSLSocketFactory
>
> Isn't it time for a new release ? Should we call it 2.0.0 ?
>
+1
--
Julien Vermillard
Archean Technologies
http://www.archean.fr
Re: What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Julien Vermillard
<jv...@archean.fr> wrote:
> Le Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:02:41 +0100,
> Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> We have fixed some important issues lately in 2.0-RC1 :
>> DIRMINA-749 : We cannot anymore inject more than one CODEC in the
>> chain. DIRMINA-678 : NioProcessor 100% CPU usage on Linux (epoll
>> selector bug) DIRMINA-650 : Mina server does not recieve all data
>> sent by client using SSLSocketFactory
>>
>> Isn't it time for a new release ? Should we call it 2.0.0 ?
>>
>
> +1
>
>
> --
> Julien Vermillard
>
> Archean Technologies
> http://www.archean.fr
>
--
thanks
ashish
Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
Re: What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>.
Le Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:02:41 +0100,
Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> We have fixed some important issues lately in 2.0-RC1 :
> DIRMINA-749 : We cannot anymore inject more than one CODEC in the
> chain. DIRMINA-678 : NioProcessor 100% CPU usage on Linux (epoll
> selector bug) DIRMINA-650 : Mina server does not recieve all data
> sent by client using SSLSocketFactory
>
> Isn't it time for a new release ? Should we call it 2.0.0 ?
>
+1
--
Julien Vermillard
Archean Technologies
http://www.archean.fr
Re: What about releasing a 2.0-RC2/2.0.0 ?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1
Jeff
On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> We have fixed some important issues lately in 2.0-RC1 :
> DIRMINA-749 : We cannot anymore inject more than one CODEC in the
> chain.
> DIRMINA-678 : NioProcessor 100% CPU usage on Linux (epoll selector
> bug)
> DIRMINA-650 : Mina server does not recieve all data sent by client
> using SSLSocketFactory
>
> Isn't it time for a new release ? Should we call it 2.0.0 ?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.nextury.com
>
>