You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@rave.apache.org by Raminderjeet Singh <ra...@gmail.com> on 2012/12/02 05:34:08 UTC
[DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
For more information on the release process, checkout -
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
Some of the things to check before voting are:
- can you run the demo binaries
- can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
- do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE files
- are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
- is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Posted by Marlon Pierce <ma...@iu.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I downloaded and checked the builds for both source and binaries, ran
the integration tests, verified the signing and checksums, digests.
Everything looks fine to me.
Marlon
On 12/1/12 11:34 PM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>
> For more information on the release process, checkout -
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> Some of the things to check before voting are: - can you run the
> demo binaries - can you build the contents of source-release.zip
> and svn tag - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required
> LICENSE and NOTICE files - are all of the staged artifacts signed
> and the signature verifiable - is the signing key in the project's
> KEYS file and on a public server
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQvNTVAAoJEOEgD2XReDo5BxYH/0CPKOYPvUeoPHhSqcvul3ai
mv89S5VXgPv/5rdpK++pyywAn9GqRH+wOqDbeIBtcTAtIAJxXAGUati7iRs6iUQP
gWn8pnZFKKHtI7tZnlFaLiDgcFIHkBEATxmHXKQ8U1kdUhNxOxHtSaNz0lIQoeBE
KqEzK9f8JcQlFAdfEa2aq6lUqssnulBHF/nm95mNncupvThINxMr844XTEy4XU3+
nGGzYxNU+w6QzBOWerUG7uBawRLw2eZr/pJPOUZDK4jfsIC7EsCeU9/m3limYclK
oqRu2OHrtrwfsaHpkYsh99vOe0n5I3cYCAP3n+Ouhy3rk5uY7gB/duiUJeTqsUc=
=Jm1o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Posted by Jasha Joachimsthal <ja...@apache.org>.
Unfortunately I'm unable to check this release, so no vote from me. Please
let's not make this bug a blocker for 0.18. Before the next release we
should put more effort in extending the integration tests.
On 5 December 2012 01:35, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking
> (RAVE-838).
> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend associations
> now works.
>
> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a
> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared pages
> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
>
> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already
> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly
> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an
> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade
> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed.
> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't had
> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
>
> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight
> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
>
> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
>
> Ate
>
>
>
> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>
>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>>
>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
>>
>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>> - can you run the demo binaries
>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files
>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 12/05/2012 02:52 AM, Chris Geer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>
>> I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
>> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking
>> (RAVE-838).
>> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend associations
>> now works.
>>
>> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a
>> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared pages
>> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
>>
>> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already
>> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly
>> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an
>> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade
>> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed.
>> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't had
>> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
>>
>> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight
>> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
>>
>
> I vote that we proceed with the release and put a note not to upgrade if
> you use this feature. That way people who don't use the feature get an
> upgrade and the people who do use it are not any worse off as long as they
> don't upgrade.
>
> Two questions on RAVE-859
> - Do you know if it's a logic error (we are purposely deleting the page)
No, I haven't had time to look at the code yet, won't have time either until
later this week. But purposely deleting the page (when knowing it is shared but
not owned) doesn't sound logical to me. Its a bug anyway.
> or is it an unintended JPA delete based on referential integrity?
> - How will your work on the HMVC impact pages and page sharing? Will it
> fix this issue by replacing it with a different approach?
No, the HMVC deals with functionality on a page, not with the management of
pages themselves.
>
> If we can get concurrence on RAVE-859 then here is my +1
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
>>
>> Ate
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>>
>>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>>>
>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
>>>
>>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>>> - can you run the demo binaries
>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE
>>> files
>>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Posted by Raminderjeet Singh <ra...@gmail.com>.
I agree to proceed with the release with the note as we missed last release also. We need to expand our tests for such cases. I spent enough time testing features listed on release test page. We need to update that page and make everyone aware to keep updating that for new features.
Thanks
Raminder
On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:52 PM, Chris Geer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>
>> I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
>> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking
>> (RAVE-838).
>> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend associations
>> now works.
>>
>> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a
>> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared pages
>> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
>>
>> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already
>> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly
>> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an
>> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade
>> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed.
>> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't had
>> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
>>
>> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight
>> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
>>
>
> I vote that we proceed with the release and put a note not to upgrade if
> you use this feature. That way people who don't use the feature get an
> upgrade and the people who do use it are not any worse off as long as they
> don't upgrade.
>
> Two questions on RAVE-859
> - Do you know if it's a logic error (we are purposely deleting the page)
> or is it an unintended JPA delete based on referential integrity?
> - How will your work on the HMVC impact pages and page sharing? Will it
> fix this issue by replacing it with a different approach?
>
> If we can get concurrence on RAVE-859 then here is my +1
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
>>
>> Ate
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>>
>>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>>>
>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
>>>
>>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>>> - can you run the demo binaries
>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE
>>> files
>>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Posted by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking
> (RAVE-838).
> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend associations
> now works.
>
> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a
> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared pages
> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
>
> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already
> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly
> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an
> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade
> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed.
> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't had
> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
>
> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight
> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
>
I vote that we proceed with the release and put a note not to upgrade if
you use this feature. That way people who don't use the feature get an
upgrade and the people who do use it are not any worse off as long as they
don't upgrade.
Two questions on RAVE-859
- Do you know if it's a logic error (we are purposely deleting the page)
or is it an unintended JPA delete based on referential integrity?
- How will your work on the HMVC impact pages and page sharing? Will it
fix this issue by replacing it with a different approach?
If we can get concurrence on RAVE-859 then here is my +1
Chris
>
> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
>
> Ate
>
>
>
> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>
>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>>
>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
>>
>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>> - can you run the demo binaries
>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files
>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking (RAVE-838).
Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend associations now
works.
However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a user
who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared pages which
aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already canceled
the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly qualifies. I
don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an (almost) production
environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade to this 0.18 release
candidate until this bug is fixed.
Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't had time
to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight this
in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
Ate
On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>
> For more information on the release process, checkout -
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> Some of the things to check before voting are:
> - can you run the demo binaries
> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE files
> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>