You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openmeetings.apache.org by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com> on 2013/03/22 15:52:21 UTC
[VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Dear OpenMeetings Community,
I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC3
RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
Main changes are covered in the Readme:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
My vote is +1.
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
you can just manually delete
build/red5/server/dist
build/red5/client/dist
build/lib
dist
to save your time :)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Maxim: That is really great!
> I am looking at the Test that fails but I have not found out yet why it
> fails.
> I need to clean my workspace and Ivy unfortunatelly as it seems.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> 2013/3/26 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > Here is the JUnit report of the latest trunk
> >
> >
> https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/build/junit/report/index.html
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Sebastian,
> > >
> > > I'm ready to commit changed build.xml performing JUnit tests oon each
> > build
> > > Unfortunatelly currently 1 test is failed:
> > >
> > > TestHashMapSession testHashMapSession Failure expected:<0> but was:<1>
> > >
> > > Can you please take a look at it? (trunk)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> > >> => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> > >> community to help us testing.
> > >>
> > >> *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I
> > >> also
> > >> did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited
> to
> > >> test.
> > >> *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> > months*
> > >> I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
> > >> release". That model will not work for our future.
> > >> And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
> > >>
> > >> IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test /
> > click
> > >> through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our
> current
> > >> project.
> > >> For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup
> import
> > >> was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work
> that
> > >> you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> > >> It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what
> test
> > >> fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
> > missing
> > >> to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
> > >> keeps us away from doing that?
> > >>
> > >> Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
> > >> tests are just outdated.
> > >> But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> > >> automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment,
> just
> > >> zero tests run automated.
> > >> This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can
> test a
> > >> lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> > >> The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody
> > else
> > >> involved has done for 2.1
> > >> => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> > >> An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1
> > needs
> > >> no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that
> > in
> > >> any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> > >> And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number
> of
> > >> committers.
> > >>
> > >> It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to
> improve
> > >> that in the future?
> > >>
> > >> The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
> > >> project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> > >>
> > >> From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
> > >> value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
> "feature"
> > >> that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> > >> So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of
> > >> manual
> > >> click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> > >> I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
> > >> clicking
> > >> through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> > >>
> > >> Sebastian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> Yuliya)
> > >> > additional causes are:
> > >> > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > >> > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> > months
> > >> >
> > >> > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should
> > have
> > >> 2-3
> > >> > month
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > >> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed
> > on
> > >> > > already happen?
> > >> > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sebastian
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> > >> 2.1.0
> > >> > > RC3
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Full Changelog:
> > >> > > >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Release artefacts:
> > >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > >> > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > >> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > >> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > My vote is +1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > WBR
> > >> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > >> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > >> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > >> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > >> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > WBR
> > >> > Maxim aka solomax
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sebastian Wagner
> > >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > >> http://www.webbase-design.de
> > >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > >> seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
@Maxim: That is really great!
I am looking at the Test that fails but I have not found out yet why it
fails.
I need to clean my workspace and Ivy unfortunatelly as it seems.
Sebastian
2013/3/26 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> Here is the JUnit report of the latest trunk
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/build/junit/report/index.html
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hello Sebastian,
> >
> > I'm ready to commit changed build.xml performing JUnit tests oon each
> build
> > Unfortunatelly currently 1 test is failed:
> >
> > TestHashMapSession testHashMapSession Failure expected:<0> but was:<1>
> >
> > Can you please take a look at it? (trunk)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> >> => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> >> community to help us testing.
> >>
> >> *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I
> >> also
> >> did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to
> >> test.
> >> *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> months*
> >> I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
> >> release". That model will not work for our future.
> >> And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
> >>
> >> IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test /
> click
> >> through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
> >> project.
> >> For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import
> >> was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
> >> you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> >> It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test
> >> fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
> missing
> >> to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
> >> keeps us away from doing that?
> >>
> >> Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
> >> tests are just outdated.
> >> But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> >> automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just
> >> zero tests run automated.
> >> This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a
> >> lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> >> The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody
> else
> >> involved has done for 2.1
> >> => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> >> An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1
> needs
> >> no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that
> in
> >> any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> >> And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
> >> committers.
> >>
> >> It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
> >> that in the future?
> >>
> >> The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
> >> project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> >>
> >> From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
> >> value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature"
> >> that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> >> So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of
> >> manual
> >> click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> >> I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
> >> clicking
> >> through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> >>
> >> Sebastian
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> >> > additional causes are:
> >> > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> >> > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> months
> >> >
> >> > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should
> have
> >> 2-3
> >> > month
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> >> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Maxim,
> >> > >
> >> > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed
> on
> >> > > already happen?
> >> > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sebastian
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> >> 2.1.0
> >> > > RC3
> >> > > >
> >> > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Full Changelog:
> >> > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Release artefacts:
> >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> >> > > >
> >> > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [ ] +1 approve
> >> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My vote is +1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > WBR
> >> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Sebastian Wagner
> >> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> >> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> >> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> >> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > WBR
> >> > Maxim aka solomax
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sebastian Wagner
> >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> >> http://www.webbase-design.de
> >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> >> seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
Here is the JUnit report of the latest trunk
https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/build/junit/report/index.html
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hello Sebastian,
>
> I'm ready to commit changed build.xml performing JUnit tests oon each build
> Unfortunatelly currently 1 test is failed:
>
> TestHashMapSession testHashMapSession Failure expected:<0> but was:<1>
>
> Can you please take a look at it? (trunk)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
>> => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
>> community to help us testing.
>>
>> *1) there were no issues reported by users*
>> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I
>> also
>> did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to
>> test.
>> *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months*
>> I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
>> release". That model will not work for our future.
>> And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
>>
>> IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click
>> through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
>> project.
>> For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import
>> was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
>> you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
>> It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test
>> fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits missing
>> to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
>> keeps us away from doing that?
>>
>> Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
>> tests are just outdated.
>> But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
>> automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just
>> zero tests run automated.
>> This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a
>> lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
>> The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody else
>> involved has done for 2.1
>> => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
>> An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs
>> no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in
>> any sense. Every release does need a full test.
>> And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
>> committers.
>>
>> It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
>> that in the future?
>>
>> The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
>> project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
>>
>> From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
>> value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature"
>> that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
>> So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of
>> manual
>> click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
>> I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
>> clicking
>> through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
>> > additional causes are:
>> > 1) there were no issues reported by users
>> > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months
>> >
>> > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have
>> 2-3
>> > month
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Maxim,
>> > >
>> > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
>> > > already happen?
>> > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
>> > >
>> > > Sebastian
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >
>> > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>> > > >
>> > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
>> 2.1.0
>> > > RC3
>> > > >
>> > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>> > > >
>> > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>> > > >
>> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
>> > > >
>> > > > Full Changelog:
>> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
>> > > >
>> > > > Release artefacts:
>> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
>> > > >
>> > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
>> > > >
>> > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
>> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
>> > > >
>> > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>> > > >
>> > > > [ ] +1 approve
>> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
>> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> > > >
>> > > > My vote is +1.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > WBR
>> > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > WBR
>> > Maxim aka solomax
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
Hello Sebastian,
I'm ready to commit changed build.xml performing JUnit tests oon each build
Unfortunatelly currently 1 test is failed:
TestHashMapSession testHashMapSession Failure expected:<0> but was:<1>
Can you please take a look at it? (trunk)
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> community to help us testing.
>
> *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I also
> did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to
> test.
> *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months*
> I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
> release". That model will not work for our future.
> And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
>
> IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click
> through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
> project.
> For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import
> was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
> you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test
> fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits missing
> to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
> keeps us away from doing that?
>
> Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
> tests are just outdated.
> But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just
> zero tests run automated.
> This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a
> lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody else
> involved has done for 2.1
> => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs
> no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in
> any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
> committers.
>
> It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
> that in the future?
>
> The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
> project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
>
> From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
> value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature"
> that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of manual
> click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and clicking
> through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> > additional causes are:
> > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months
> >
> > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have
> 2-3
> > month
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
> > > already happen?
> > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> 2.1.0
> > > RC3
> > > >
> > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > >
> > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > >
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > > >
> > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > > >
> > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > > >
> > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > > >
> > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > > >
> > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > >
> > > > My vote is +1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebastian,
Done for 2.1 branch and trunk:
http://openmeetings.apache.org/ManualTesting.html
Best regards,
Irina.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Irina Arkhipets <irina.arkhipets@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> OK - I'll put it on the site tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
> Irina.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @Irina: I think I would put this document on the public community website.
>> The community website is bundled with each build in the directory
>> webapps/openmeetings/docs
>> That means that each version has its own dedivated version of the testing
>> plan.
>> Otherwise it is hard to tell which of those test methods belong to which
>> version of OpenMeetings.
>>
>> It is also possible to see different versions of the community website
>> through jenkins:
>> For example for the Version 2.0:
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/OpenMeetings/job/OpenMeetings%202.0/ws/2.0/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
>> For the version Version 2.1:
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/OpenMeetings/job/Openmeetings%202.1/ws/2.1/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
>> For trunk:
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
>>
>> I would suggest that we start with this document, and then try to automize
>> those tests step by step.
>> So hopefully one day we only run our test suite and no more manual testing
>> is needed.
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/25 Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Here is a link to the testplan for 2.1 release:
>> >
>> >
>> http://opensourcewebconferencing.blogspot.ru/2013/03/testplan-for-release-21-testing.html
>> >
>> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Irina Arkhipets
>> > <ir...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Sebastian,
>> > >
>> > > Some time ago I've created a test plan for Vasiliy where I tried to
>> cover
>> > > all the cases and which was revieved by Alexei and Maxim.
>> > >
>> > > It's currently on Russian, and probably is incomplete in some aspects.
>> > > I'll try to do translate it on English and share with others ASAP
>> (hope,
>> > > today later or tomorrow). Vasiliy will be responsible for the reports
>> > about
>> > > the tests execution.
>> > > .
>> > > Any yes, our fault is that we did not share it with the community from
>> > the
>> > > very beginning :(.
>> > >
>> > > You are right about the automated junit tests. I'll try to help Maxim
>> > with
>> > > this :)
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Irina.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I would be already happy if we do the following:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1) Enable the Junit test to run automated (by using the Backup Import
>> > via
>> > >> JUnit as example)
>> > >> So that every committer can add new JUnit tests that run with every
>> > >> Nightly
>> > >> Build.
>> > >>
>> > >> 2) Start a list of test/use cases that should be performed with any
>> > >> release.
>> > >> Maybe there is already such a list ? What did Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
>> > >> Vasya,
>> > >> Yuliya test at all ?
>> > >> How did they manage the work of "testing", did they agree on any
>> tests
>> > >> that
>> > >> need to be performed ?
>> > >>
>> > >> Sebastian
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >>
>> > >> > I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on
>> it
>> > in
>> > >> > the future.
>> > >> > Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
>> > >> > I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now
>> :((
>> > )
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > >> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash
>> now.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only
>> run
>> > >> > JUnit
>> > >> > > tests automated ?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time
>> you
>> > >> > spend
>> > >> > > on even more painful tasks.
>> > >> > > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
>> > >> > > - It is likely that nobody will do testing
>> > >> > > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki
>> > >> > document
>> > >> > > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody
>> takes
>> > >> care
>> > >> > > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have
>> > been
>> > >> > > performed at all or not, et cetera)
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test
>> is
>> > >> still
>> > >> > > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests,
>> > mail
>> > >> > ping
>> > >> > > pong and discussion with every release that we do.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Sebastian
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no
>> public
>> > >> demo
>> > >> > > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows
>> > "self
>> > >> > > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were
>> no
>> > >> "Call
>> > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to
>> release,
>> > >> > please
>> > >> > > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let
>> me
>> > >> > > know....
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to
>> > the
>> > >> > build
>> > >> > > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests
>> on
>> > >> our UI
>> > >> > > > similar to their tests (never tried that)
>> > >> > > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > according to our (and Apache guide)
>> > >> > > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
>> > >> > > > "
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the
>> signed
>> > >> > source
>> > >> > > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
>> > >> executable
>> > >> > > on
>> > >> > > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package
>> > meets
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > "
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > >> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
>> Vasya,
>> > >> > Yuliya)
>> > >> > > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would
>> invite
>> > the
>> > >> > > > > community to help us testing.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
>> > >> > > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no
>> public
>> > >> demo?
>> > >> > I
>> > >> > > > also
>> > >> > > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are
>> > >> invited
>> > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > test.
>> > >> > > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait
>> another
>> > 6
>> > >> > > months*
>> > >> > > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev
>> > >> complete
>> > >> > =>
>> > >> > > > > release". That model will not work for our future.
>> > >> > > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands
>> > that.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual
>> > test
>> > >> /
>> > >> > > click
>> > >> > > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in
>> our
>> > >> > current
>> > >> > > > > project.
>> > >> > > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the
>> > backup
>> > >> > > import
>> > >> > > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that
>> > work
>> > >> > that
>> > >> > > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
>> > >> > > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and
>> see
>> > >> what
>> > >> > > test
>> > >> > > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of
>> > bits
>> > >> > > > missing
>> > >> > > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't
>> > understand
>> > >> > what
>> > >> > > > > keeps us away from doing that?
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good
>> amount
>> > of
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > tests are just outdated.
>> > >> > > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that
>> > run
>> > >> > > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the
>> > >> moment,
>> > >> > > just
>> > >> > > > > zero tests run automated.
>> > >> > > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you
>> > can
>> > >> > test
>> > >> > > a
>> > >> > > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
>> > >> > > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and
>> > >> anybody
>> > >> > > > else
>> > >> > > > > involved has done for 2.1
>> > >> > > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
>> > >> > > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the
>> release
>> > >> 2.1
>> > >> > > needs
>> > >> > > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not
>> agree
>> > on
>> > >> > that
>> > >> > > in
>> > >> > > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
>> > >> > > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing
>> > >> number
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > > > > committers.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do
>> to
>> > >> > improve
>> > >> > > > > that in the future?
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody
>> involved
>> > in
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me)
>> ?
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the
>> > feature
>> > >> > add
>> > >> > > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not
>> a
>> > >> > > "feature"
>> > >> > > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
>> > >> > > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same
>> > amount
>> > >> of
>> > >> > > > manual
>> > >> > > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
>> > >> > > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every
>> release
>> > and
>> > >> > > > clicking
>> > >> > > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Sebastian
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
>> Vasya,
>> > >> > > Yuliya)
>> > >> > > > > > additional causes are:
>> > >> > > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
>> > >> > > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait
>> > another 6
>> > >> > > months
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we
>> > >> should
>> > >> > > have
>> > >> > > > > 2-3
>> > >> > > > > > month
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > >> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we
>> have
>> > >> > agreed
>> > >> > > on
>> > >> > > > > > > already happen?
>> > >> > > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Sebastian
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache
>> > >> > OpenMeetings
>> > >> > > > > 2.1.0
>> > >> > > > > > > RC3
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Full Changelog:
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Release artefacts:
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Tag:
>> > >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
>> > >> > > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
>> > >> > > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > My vote is +1.
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > --
>> > >> > > > > > > > WBR
>> > >> > > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > --
>> > >> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > >> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > >> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > >> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > >> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > --
>> > >> > > > > > WBR
>> > >> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > --
>> > >> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > >> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > >> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > >> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > >> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > WBR
>> > >> > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > --
>> > >> > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > >> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > >> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > >> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > >> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > WBR
>> > >> > Maxim aka solomax
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Sebastian Wagner
>> > >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > >> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > >> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebastian,
OK - I'll put it on the site tomorrow.
Best regards,
Irina.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Irina: I think I would put this document on the public community website.
> The community website is bundled with each build in the directory
> webapps/openmeetings/docs
> That means that each version has its own dedivated version of the testing
> plan.
> Otherwise it is hard to tell which of those test methods belong to which
> version of OpenMeetings.
>
> It is also possible to see different versions of the community website
> through jenkins:
> For example for the Version 2.0:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/OpenMeetings/job/OpenMeetings%202.0/ws/2.0/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
> For the version Version 2.1:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/OpenMeetings/job/Openmeetings%202.1/ws/2.1/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
> For trunk:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
>
> I would suggest that we start with this document, and then try to automize
> those tests step by step.
> So hopefully one day we only run our test suite and no more manual testing
> is needed.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
> 2013/3/25 Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>
>
> > Here is a link to the testplan for 2.1 release:
> >
> >
> http://opensourcewebconferencing.blogspot.ru/2013/03/testplan-for-release-21-testing.html
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Irina Arkhipets
> > <ir...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sebastian,
> > >
> > > Some time ago I've created a test plan for Vasiliy where I tried to
> cover
> > > all the cases and which was revieved by Alexei and Maxim.
> > >
> > > It's currently on Russian, and probably is incomplete in some aspects.
> > > I'll try to do translate it on English and share with others ASAP
> (hope,
> > > today later or tomorrow). Vasiliy will be responsible for the reports
> > about
> > > the tests execution.
> > > .
> > > Any yes, our fault is that we did not share it with the community from
> > the
> > > very beginning :(.
> > >
> > > You are right about the automated junit tests. I'll try to help Maxim
> > with
> > > this :)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Irina.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would be already happy if we do the following:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Enable the Junit test to run automated (by using the Backup Import
> > via
> > >> JUnit as example)
> > >> So that every committer can add new JUnit tests that run with every
> > >> Nightly
> > >> Build.
> > >>
> > >> 2) Start a list of test/use cases that should be performed with any
> > >> release.
> > >> Maybe there is already such a list ? What did Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
> > >> Vasya,
> > >> Yuliya test at all ?
> > >> How did they manage the work of "testing", did they agree on any tests
> > >> that
> > >> need to be performed ?
> > >>
> > >> Sebastian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> > I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on
> it
> > in
> > >> > the future.
> > >> > Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
> > >> > I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now
> :((
> > )
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > >> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash
> now.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only
> run
> > >> > JUnit
> > >> > > tests automated ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time
> you
> > >> > spend
> > >> > > on even more painful tasks.
> > >> > > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
> > >> > > - It is likely that nobody will do testing
> > >> > > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki
> > >> > document
> > >> > > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody
> takes
> > >> care
> > >> > > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have
> > been
> > >> > > performed at all or not, et cetera)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is
> > >> still
> > >> > > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests,
> > mail
> > >> > ping
> > >> > > pong and discussion with every release that we do.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sebastian
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no
> public
> > >> demo
> > >> > > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows
> > "self
> > >> > > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were
> no
> > >> "Call
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to
> release,
> > >> > please
> > >> > > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let
> me
> > >> > > know....
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to
> > the
> > >> > build
> > >> > > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on
> > >> our UI
> > >> > > > similar to their tests (never tried that)
> > >> > > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > according to our (and Apache guide)
> > >> > > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
> > >> > > > "
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the
> signed
> > >> > source
> > >> > > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
> > >> executable
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package
> > meets
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > "
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > >> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> > >> > Yuliya)
> > >> > > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite
> > the
> > >> > > > > community to help us testing.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> > >> > > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
> > >> demo?
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > also
> > >> > > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are
> > >> invited
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > test.
> > >> > > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait
> another
> > 6
> > >> > > months*
> > >> > > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev
> > >> complete
> > >> > =>
> > >> > > > > release". That model will not work for our future.
> > >> > > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands
> > that.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual
> > test
> > >> /
> > >> > > click
> > >> > > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in
> our
> > >> > current
> > >> > > > > project.
> > >> > > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the
> > backup
> > >> > > import
> > >> > > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that
> > work
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> > >> > > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see
> > >> what
> > >> > > test
> > >> > > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of
> > bits
> > >> > > > missing
> > >> > > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't
> > understand
> > >> > what
> > >> > > > > keeps us away from doing that?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good
> amount
> > of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > tests are just outdated.
> > >> > > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that
> > run
> > >> > > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the
> > >> moment,
> > >> > > just
> > >> > > > > zero tests run automated.
> > >> > > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you
> > can
> > >> > test
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> > >> > > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and
> > >> anybody
> > >> > > > else
> > >> > > > > involved has done for 2.1
> > >> > > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> > >> > > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the
> release
> > >> 2.1
> > >> > > needs
> > >> > > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree
> > on
> > >> > that
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> > >> > > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing
> > >> number
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > committers.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do
> to
> > >> > improve
> > >> > > > > that in the future?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody
> involved
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the
> > feature
> > >> > add
> > >> > > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
> > >> > > "feature"
> > >> > > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> > >> > > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same
> > amount
> > >> of
> > >> > > > manual
> > >> > > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> > >> > > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release
> > and
> > >> > > > clicking
> > >> > > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Sebastian
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
> Vasya,
> > >> > > Yuliya)
> > >> > > > > > additional causes are:
> > >> > > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > >> > > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait
> > another 6
> > >> > > months
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we
> > >> should
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > 2-3
> > >> > > > > > month
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > >> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we
> have
> > >> > agreed
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > > > already happen?
> > >> > > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Sebastian
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache
> > >> > OpenMeetings
> > >> > > > > 2.1.0
> > >> > > > > > > RC3
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Full Changelog:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Release artefacts:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Tag:
> > >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > >> > > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > >> > > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > My vote is +1.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > WBR
> > >> > > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > >> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > >> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > >> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > >> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > WBR
> > >> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > >> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > >> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > >> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > >> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > WBR
> > >> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > >> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > >> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > >> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > >> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > WBR
> > >> > Maxim aka solomax
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sebastian Wagner
> > >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > >> http://www.webbase-design.de
> > >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > >> seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
@Irina: I think I would put this document on the public community website.
The community website is bundled with each build in the directory
webapps/openmeetings/docs
That means that each version has its own dedivated version of the testing
plan.
Otherwise it is hard to tell which of those test methods belong to which
version of OpenMeetings.
It is also possible to see different versions of the community website
through jenkins:
For example for the Version 2.0:
https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/OpenMeetings/job/OpenMeetings%202.0/ws/2.0/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
For the version Version 2.1:
https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/OpenMeetings/job/Openmeetings%202.1/ws/2.1/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
For trunk:
https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/dist/red5/webapps/openmeetings/docs/index.html
I would suggest that we start with this document, and then try to automize
those tests step by step.
So hopefully one day we only run our test suite and no more manual testing
is needed.
Sebastian
2013/3/25 Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>
> Here is a link to the testplan for 2.1 release:
>
> http://opensourcewebconferencing.blogspot.ru/2013/03/testplan-for-release-21-testing.html
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Irina Arkhipets
> <ir...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi Sebastian,
> >
> > Some time ago I've created a test plan for Vasiliy where I tried to cover
> > all the cases and which was revieved by Alexei and Maxim.
> >
> > It's currently on Russian, and probably is incomplete in some aspects.
> > I'll try to do translate it on English and share with others ASAP (hope,
> > today later or tomorrow). Vasiliy will be responsible for the reports
> about
> > the tests execution.
> > .
> > Any yes, our fault is that we did not share it with the community from
> the
> > very beginning :(.
> >
> > You are right about the automated junit tests. I'll try to help Maxim
> with
> > this :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Irina.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would be already happy if we do the following:
> >>
> >> 1) Enable the Junit test to run automated (by using the Backup Import
> via
> >> JUnit as example)
> >> So that every committer can add new JUnit tests that run with every
> >> Nightly
> >> Build.
> >>
> >> 2) Start a list of test/use cases that should be performed with any
> >> release.
> >> Maybe there is already such a list ? What did Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
> >> Vasya,
> >> Yuliya test at all ?
> >> How did they manage the work of "testing", did they agree on any tests
> >> that
> >> need to be performed ?
> >>
> >> Sebastian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on it
> in
> >> > the future.
> >> > Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
> >> > I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now :((
> )
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> >> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run
> >> > JUnit
> >> > > tests automated ?
> >> > >
> >> > > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
> >> > >
> >> > > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you
> >> > spend
> >> > > on even more painful tasks.
> >> > > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
> >> > > - It is likely that nobody will do testing
> >> > > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki
> >> > document
> >> > > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes
> >> care
> >> > > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have
> been
> >> > > performed at all or not, et cetera)
> >> > >
> >> > > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is
> >> still
> >> > > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests,
> mail
> >> > ping
> >> > > pong and discussion with every release that we do.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sebastian
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
> >> demo
> >> > > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows
> "self
> >> > > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no
> >> "Call
> >> > > to
> >> > > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release,
> >> > please
> >> > > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me
> >> > > know....
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to
> the
> >> > build
> >> > > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on
> >> our UI
> >> > > > similar to their tests (never tried that)
> >> > > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > according to our (and Apache guide)
> >> > > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
> >> > > > "
> >> > > >
> >> > > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
> >> > source
> >> > > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
> >> executable
> >> > > on
> >> > > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package
> meets
> >> > the
> >> > > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> >> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> >> > Yuliya)
> >> > > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite
> the
> >> > > > > community to help us testing.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> >> > > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
> >> demo?
> >> > I
> >> > > > also
> >> > > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are
> >> invited
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > test.
> >> > > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another
> 6
> >> > > months*
> >> > > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev
> >> complete
> >> > =>
> >> > > > > release". That model will not work for our future.
> >> > > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands
> that.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual
> test
> >> /
> >> > > click
> >> > > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our
> >> > current
> >> > > > > project.
> >> > > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the
> backup
> >> > > import
> >> > > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that
> work
> >> > that
> >> > > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> >> > > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see
> >> what
> >> > > test
> >> > > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of
> bits
> >> > > > missing
> >> > > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't
> understand
> >> > what
> >> > > > > keeps us away from doing that?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount
> of
> >> > the
> >> > > > > tests are just outdated.
> >> > > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that
> run
> >> > > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the
> >> moment,
> >> > > just
> >> > > > > zero tests run automated.
> >> > > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you
> can
> >> > test
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> >> > > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and
> >> anybody
> >> > > > else
> >> > > > > involved has done for 2.1
> >> > > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> >> > > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release
> >> 2.1
> >> > > needs
> >> > > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree
> on
> >> > that
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> >> > > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing
> >> number
> >> > of
> >> > > > > committers.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to
> >> > improve
> >> > > > > that in the future?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the
> feature
> >> > add
> >> > > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
> >> > > "feature"
> >> > > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> >> > > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same
> amount
> >> of
> >> > > > manual
> >> > > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> >> > > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release
> and
> >> > > > clicking
> >> > > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Sebastian
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> >> > > Yuliya)
> >> > > > > > additional causes are:
> >> > > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> >> > > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait
> another 6
> >> > > months
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we
> >> should
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > 2-3
> >> > > > > > month
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> >> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have
> >> > agreed
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > > > already happen?
> >> > > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Sebastian
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache
> >> > OpenMeetings
> >> > > > > 2.1.0
> >> > > > > > > RC3
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Full Changelog:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Release artefacts:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Tag:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> >> > > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> > > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > My vote is +1.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > WBR
> >> > > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> >> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> >> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> >> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> >> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > WBR
> >> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> >> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> >> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> >> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> >> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > WBR
> >> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Sebastian Wagner
> >> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> >> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> >> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> >> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > WBR
> >> > Maxim aka solomax
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sebastian Wagner
> >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> >> http://www.webbase-design.de
> >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> >> seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>.
Here is a link to the testplan for 2.1 release:
http://opensourcewebconferencing.blogspot.ru/2013/03/testplan-for-release-21-testing.html
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Irina Arkhipets
<ir...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Some time ago I've created a test plan for Vasiliy where I tried to cover
> all the cases and which was revieved by Alexei and Maxim.
>
> It's currently on Russian, and probably is incomplete in some aspects.
> I'll try to do translate it on English and share with others ASAP (hope,
> today later or tomorrow). Vasiliy will be responsible for the reports about
> the tests execution.
> .
> Any yes, our fault is that we did not share it with the community from the
> very beginning :(.
>
> You are right about the automated junit tests. I'll try to help Maxim with
> this :)
>
> Best regards,
> Irina.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would be already happy if we do the following:
>>
>> 1) Enable the Junit test to run automated (by using the Backup Import via
>> JUnit as example)
>> So that every committer can add new JUnit tests that run with every
>> Nightly
>> Build.
>>
>> 2) Start a list of test/use cases that should be performed with any
>> release.
>> Maybe there is already such a list ? What did Alexey, Artyom, Irina,
>> Vasya,
>> Yuliya test at all ?
>> How did they manage the work of "testing", did they agree on any tests
>> that
>> need to be performed ?
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on it in
>> > the future.
>> > Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
>> > I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now :(( )
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now.
>> > >
>> > > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run
>> > JUnit
>> > > tests automated ?
>> > >
>> > > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
>> > >
>> > > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you
>> > spend
>> > > on even more painful tasks.
>> > > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
>> > > - It is likely that nobody will do testing
>> > > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki
>> > document
>> > > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes
>> care
>> > > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have been
>> > > performed at all or not, et cetera)
>> > >
>> > > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is
>> still
>> > > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests, mail
>> > ping
>> > > pong and discussion with every release that we do.
>> > >
>> > > Sebastian
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >
>> > > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
>> > > >
>> > > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
>> demo
>> > > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self
>> > > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no
>> "Call
>> > > to
>> > > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release,
>> > please
>> > > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me
>> > > know....
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the
>> > build
>> > > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
>> > > >
>> > > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on
>> our UI
>> > > > similar to their tests (never tried that)
>> > > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
>> > > >
>> > > > according to our (and Apache guide)
>> > > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
>> > > > "
>> > > >
>> > > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
>> > source
>> > > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
>> executable
>> > > on
>> > > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets
>> > the
>> > > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
>> > > >
>> > > > "
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
>> > Yuliya)
>> > > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
>> > > > > community to help us testing.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
>> > > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
>> demo?
>> > I
>> > > > also
>> > > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are
>> invited
>> > > to
>> > > > > test.
>> > > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
>> > > months*
>> > > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev
>> complete
>> > =>
>> > > > > release". That model will not work for our future.
>> > > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test
>> /
>> > > click
>> > > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our
>> > current
>> > > > > project.
>> > > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup
>> > > import
>> > > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work
>> > that
>> > > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
>> > > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see
>> what
>> > > test
>> > > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
>> > > > missing
>> > > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand
>> > what
>> > > > > keeps us away from doing that?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of
>> > the
>> > > > > tests are just outdated.
>> > > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
>> > > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the
>> moment,
>> > > just
>> > > > > zero tests run automated.
>> > > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can
>> > test
>> > > a
>> > > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
>> > > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and
>> anybody
>> > > > else
>> > > > > involved has done for 2.1
>> > > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
>> > > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release
>> 2.1
>> > > needs
>> > > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on
>> > that
>> > > in
>> > > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
>> > > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing
>> number
>> > of
>> > > > > committers.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to
>> > improve
>> > > > > that in the future?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in
>> > the
>> > > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature
>> > add
>> > > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
>> > > "feature"
>> > > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
>> > > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount
>> of
>> > > > manual
>> > > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
>> > > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
>> > > > clicking
>> > > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sebastian
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
>> > > Yuliya)
>> > > > > > additional causes are:
>> > > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
>> > > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
>> > > months
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we
>> should
>> > > have
>> > > > > 2-3
>> > > > > > month
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have
>> > agreed
>> > > on
>> > > > > > > already happen?
>> > > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Sebastian
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache
>> > OpenMeetings
>> > > > > 2.1.0
>> > > > > > > RC3
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Full Changelog:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Release artefacts:
>> > > > > > > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Tag:
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
>> > > > > > > >
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
>> > > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
>> > > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > My vote is +1.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > WBR
>> > > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > WBR
>> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > WBR
>> > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > WBR
>> > Maxim aka solomax
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebastian,
Some time ago I've created a test plan for Vasiliy where I tried to cover
all the cases and which was revieved by Alexei and Maxim.
It's currently on Russian, and probably is incomplete in some aspects. I'll
try to do translate it on English and share with others ASAP (hope, today
later or tomorrow). Vasiliy will be responsible for the reports about the
tests execution.
.
Any yes, our fault is that we did not share it with the community from the
very beginning :(.
You are right about the automated junit tests. I'll try to help Maxim with
this :)
Best regards,
Irina.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would be already happy if we do the following:
>
> 1) Enable the Junit test to run automated (by using the Backup Import via
> JUnit as example)
> So that every committer can add new JUnit tests that run with every Nightly
> Build.
>
> 2) Start a list of test/use cases that should be performed with any
> release.
> Maybe there is already such a list ? What did Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> Yuliya test at all ?
> How did they manage the work of "testing", did they agree on any tests that
> need to be performed ?
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on it in
> > the future.
> > Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
> > I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now :(( )
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now.
> > >
> > > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run
> > JUnit
> > > tests automated ?
> > >
> > > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
> > >
> > > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you
> > spend
> > > on even more painful tasks.
> > > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
> > > - It is likely that nobody will do testing
> > > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki
> > document
> > > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes
> care
> > > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have been
> > > performed at all or not, et cetera)
> > >
> > > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is
> still
> > > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests, mail
> > ping
> > > pong and discussion with every release that we do.
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
> > > >
> > > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
> demo
> > > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self
> > > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no
> "Call
> > > to
> > > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release,
> > please
> > > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me
> > > know....
> > > >
> > > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the
> > build
> > > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
> > > >
> > > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our
> UI
> > > > similar to their tests (never tried that)
> > > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
> > > >
> > > > according to our (and Apache guide)
> > > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
> > source
> > > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
> executable
> > > on
> > > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets
> > the
> > > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
> > > >
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> > Yuliya)
> > > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> > > > > community to help us testing.
> > > > >
> > > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> > > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public
> demo?
> > I
> > > > also
> > > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are
> invited
> > > to
> > > > > test.
> > > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> > > months*
> > > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete
> > =>
> > > > > release". That model will not work for our future.
> > > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test /
> > > click
> > > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our
> > current
> > > > > project.
> > > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup
> > > import
> > > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work
> > that
> > > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> > > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what
> > > test
> > > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
> > > > missing
> > > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand
> > what
> > > > > keeps us away from doing that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of
> > the
> > > > > tests are just outdated.
> > > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> > > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment,
> > > just
> > > > > zero tests run automated.
> > > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can
> > test
> > > a
> > > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> > > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and
> anybody
> > > > else
> > > > > involved has done for 2.1
> > > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> > > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1
> > > needs
> > > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on
> > that
> > > in
> > > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> > > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing
> number
> > of
> > > > > committers.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to
> > improve
> > > > > that in the future?
> > > > >
> > > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in
> > the
> > > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> > > > >
> > > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature
> > add
> > > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
> > > "feature"
> > > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> > > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount
> of
> > > > manual
> > > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> > > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
> > > > clicking
> > > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> > > Yuliya)
> > > > > > additional causes are:
> > > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> > > months
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we
> should
> > > have
> > > > > 2-3
> > > > > > month
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have
> > agreed
> > > on
> > > > > > > already happen?
> > > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache
> > OpenMeetings
> > > > > 2.1.0
> > > > > > > RC3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > > > > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > > > > >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My vote is +1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
I would be already happy if we do the following:
1) Enable the Junit test to run automated (by using the Backup Import via
JUnit as example)
So that every committer can add new JUnit tests that run with every Nightly
Build.
2) Start a list of test/use cases that should be performed with any release.
Maybe there is already such a list ? What did Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
Yuliya test at all ?
How did they manage the work of "testing", did they agree on any tests that
need to be performed ?
Sebastian
2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on it in
> the future.
> Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
> I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now :(( )
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now.
> >
> > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run
> JUnit
> > tests automated ?
> >
> > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
> >
> > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you
> spend
> > on even more painful tasks.
> > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
> > - It is likely that nobody will do testing
> > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki
> document
> > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes care
> > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have been
> > performed at all or not, et cetera)
> >
> > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is still
> > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests, mail
> ping
> > pong and discussion with every release that we do.
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
> > >
> > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo
> > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self
> > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no "Call
> > to
> > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release,
> please
> > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me
> > know....
> > >
> > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the
> build
> > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
> > >
> > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our UI
> > > similar to their tests (never tried that)
> > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
> > >
> > > according to our (and Apache guide)
> > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
> > > "
> > >
> > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
> source
> > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable
> > on
> > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets
> the
> > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
> > >
> > > "
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> Yuliya)
> > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> > > > community to help us testing.
> > > >
> > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo?
> I
> > > also
> > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited
> > to
> > > > test.
> > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> > months*
> > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete
> =>
> > > > release". That model will not work for our future.
> > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test /
> > click
> > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our
> current
> > > > project.
> > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup
> > import
> > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work
> that
> > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what
> > test
> > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
> > > missing
> > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand
> what
> > > > keeps us away from doing that?
> > > >
> > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of
> the
> > > > tests are just outdated.
> > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment,
> > just
> > > > zero tests run automated.
> > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can
> test
> > a
> > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody
> > > else
> > > > involved has done for 2.1
> > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1
> > needs
> > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on
> that
> > in
> > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number
> of
> > > > committers.
> > > >
> > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to
> improve
> > > > that in the future?
> > > >
> > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in
> the
> > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> > > >
> > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature
> add
> > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
> > "feature"
> > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of
> > > manual
> > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
> > > clicking
> > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> > Yuliya)
> > > > > additional causes are:
> > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> > months
> > > > >
> > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should
> > have
> > > > 2-3
> > > > > month
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have
> agreed
> > on
> > > > > > already happen?
> > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache
> OpenMeetings
> > > > 2.1.0
> > > > > > RC3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > > > >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My vote is +1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on it in
the future.
Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :(
I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now :(( )
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now.
>
> Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run JUnit
> tests automated ?
>
> How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
>
> From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you spend
> on even more painful tasks.
> Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
> - It is likely that nobody will do testing
> - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki document
> that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes care
> of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have been
> performed at all or not, et cetera)
>
> So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is still
> much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests, mail ping
> pong and discussion with every release that we do.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
> >
> > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo
> > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self
> > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no "Call
> to
> > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release, please
> > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me
> know....
> >
> > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the build
> > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
> >
> > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our UI
> > similar to their tests (never tried that)
> > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
> >
> > according to our (and Apache guide)
> > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
> > "
> >
> > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source
> > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable
> on
> > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the
> > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
> >
> > "
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> > > community to help us testing.
> > >
> > > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I
> > also
> > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited
> to
> > > test.
> > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> months*
> > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
> > > release". That model will not work for our future.
> > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
> > >
> > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test /
> click
> > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
> > > project.
> > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup
> import
> > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
> > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what
> test
> > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
> > missing
> > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
> > > keeps us away from doing that?
> > >
> > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
> > > tests are just outdated.
> > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment,
> just
> > > zero tests run automated.
> > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test
> a
> > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody
> > else
> > > involved has done for 2.1
> > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1
> needs
> > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that
> in
> > > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
> > > committers.
> > >
> > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
> > > that in the future?
> > >
> > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
> > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> > >
> > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
> > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a
> "feature"
> > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of
> > manual
> > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
> > clicking
> > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya,
> Yuliya)
> > > > additional causes are:
> > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6
> months
> > > >
> > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should
> have
> > > 2-3
> > > > month
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed
> on
> > > > > already happen?
> > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> > > 2.1.0
> > > > > RC3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My vote is +1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now.
Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run JUnit
tests automated ?
How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ?
>From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you spend
on even more painful tasks.
Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that:
- It is likely that nobody will do testing
- A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki document
that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes care
of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have been
performed at all or not, et cetera)
So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is still
much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests, mail ping
pong and discussion with every release that we do.
Sebastian
2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
>
> >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo
> I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self
> registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no "Call to
> test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release, please
> stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me know....
>
> I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the build
> (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
>
> since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our UI
> similar to their tests (never tried that)
> I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
>
> according to our (and Apache guide)
> http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
> "
>
> *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source
> code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on
> their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the
> requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
>
> "
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> > community to help us testing.
> >
> > *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I
> also
> > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to
> > test.
> > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months*
> > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
> > release". That model will not work for our future.
> > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
> >
> > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click
> > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
> > project.
> > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import
> > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
> > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test
> > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits
> missing
> > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
> > keeps us away from doing that?
> >
> > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
> > tests are just outdated.
> > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just
> > zero tests run automated.
> > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a
> > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody
> else
> > involved has done for 2.1
> > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs
> > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in
> > any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
> > committers.
> >
> > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
> > that in the future?
> >
> > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
> > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
> >
> > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
> > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature"
> > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of
> manual
> > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and
> clicking
> > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> > > additional causes are:
> > > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months
> > >
> > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have
> > 2-3
> > > month
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
> > > > already happen?
> > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> > 2.1.0
> > > > RC3
> > > > >
> > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > > >
> > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > > > >
> > > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > > > >
> > > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > > > >
> > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > > > >
> > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > > > >
> > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > >
> > > > > My vote is +1.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
It is hard for me to answer such long letters :)))
>> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo
I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self
registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no "Call to
test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release, please
stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me know....
I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the build
(I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue).
since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our UI
similar to their tests (never tried that)
I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :)
according to our (and Apache guide)
http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html
"
*Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source
code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on
their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the
requirements of the ASF policy on releases.*
"
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
> community to help us testing.
>
> *1) there were no issues reported by users*
> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I also
> did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to
> test.
> *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months*
> I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
> release". That model will not work for our future.
> And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
>
> IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click
> through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
> project.
> For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import
> was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
> you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
> It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test
> fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits missing
> to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
> keeps us away from doing that?
>
> Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
> tests are just outdated.
> But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
> automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just
> zero tests run automated.
> This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a
> lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
> The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody else
> involved has done for 2.1
> => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
> An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs
> no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in
> any sense. Every release does need a full test.
> And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
> committers.
>
> It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
> that in the future?
>
> The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
> project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
>
> From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
> value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature"
> that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
> So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of manual
> click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
> I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and clicking
> through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> > additional causes are:
> > 1) there were no issues reported by users
> > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months
> >
> > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have
> 2-3
> > month
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
> > > already happen?
> > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> 2.1.0
> > > RC3
> > > >
> > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > >
> > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > >
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > > >
> > > > Full Changelog:
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > > >
> > > > Release artefacts:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > > >
> > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > > >
> > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > > >
> > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > >
> > > > My vote is +1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
=> where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the
community to help us testing.
*1) there were no issues reported by users*
Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I also
did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to
test.
*2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months*
I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete =>
release". That model will not work for our future.
And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that.
IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click
through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current
project.
For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import
was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that
you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now.
It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test
fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits missing
to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what
keeps us away from doing that?
Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the
tests are just outdated.
But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run
automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just
zero tests run automated.
This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a
lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests.
The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody else
involved has done for 2.1
=> Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ...
An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs
no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in
any sense. Every release does need a full test.
And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of
committers.
It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve
that in the future?
The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the
project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ?
>From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add
value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature"
that adds any value to the end user from that perspective.
So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of manual
click-through tests that we do now with every release ?!
I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and clicking
through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?!
Sebastian
2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
> additional causes are:
> 1) there were no issues reported by users
> 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months
>
> ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have 2-3
> month
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
> > already happen?
> > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > >
> > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0
> > RC3
> > >
> > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > >
> > > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> > >
> > > Full Changelog:
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> > >
> > > Release artefacts:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> > >
> > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> > >
> > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> > >
> > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >
> > > My vote is +1.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya)
additional causes are:
1) there were no issues reported by users
2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months
ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have 2-3
month
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
> already happen?
> Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0
> RC3
> >
> > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> >
> > Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
> >
> > Full Changelog:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
> >
> > Release artefacts:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
> >
> > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
> >
> > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
> >
> > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > My vote is +1.
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Maxim,
I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on
already happen?
Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC?
Sebastian
2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>
> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC3
>
> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>
> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
>
> Full Changelog:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
>
> Release artefacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
>
> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> My vote is +1.
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
... md5 sums and signature seem to be all good to go.
2013/3/30 seba.wagner@gmail.com <se...@gmail.com>
> I think Irina is right. Those are no blockers but would be good to fix as
> soon as possible.
>
> +1
>
>
> 2013/3/28 Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>
>
>> I've just noticed one more problem in UI, but I would suggest have a
>> release now without the fix.
>>
>> User properties screen contains useless "SIP Account Settings" section
>> which is actuallu empty. it seems like this is not a regression and
>> presents in previous version too.
>> I am going to file a bug about this.
>>
>> Again - I don't think this is a blocker for the release.
>>
>> Best regards.
>> Irina.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Same for me. I have not installed release myself, yet if Denis's
>> > installation correctly matches a release, I spend a good amount of time
>> > using it.
>> >
>> > Right now the only thing which attracted my eye is inconsistent
>> microphone
>> > status indication when entering conference or updating conference
>> settings.
>> > This is not a blocker.
>> >
>> > --
>> > With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
>> > Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
>> > http://dataved.ru/
>> > +7 916 562 8095
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:13 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I had no time to check the signatures and md5 sums yet.
>> > > But in respect to all the improvments to the testing I think the
>> release
>> > > will be successful.
>> > >
>> > > Sebastian
>> > > Am 28.03.2013 03:23 schrieb "Irina Arkhipets" <
>> irina.arkhipets@gmail.com
>> > >:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi All,
>> > > >
>> > > > I hope it's not too late - I've just tried RC3 and tink it's OK.
>> > > >
>> > > > +1 from me :)
>> > > >
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Irina.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Vasya <va...@unipro.ru> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello All,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Vasiliy.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
>> > 2.1.0
>> > > > RC3
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/**README
>> > <
>> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/openmeetings/**
>> > > > >> tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG<
>> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.**org/repos/dist/dev/**
>> > > > >> openmeetings/2.1/rc3/<
>> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Tag:
>> http://svn.apache.org/**repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.**1RC3/<
>> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
>> > > > >>
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/**dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/**KEYS<
>> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> [ ] +1 approve
>> > > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> > > > >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> My vote is +1.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
I think Irina is right. Those are no blockers but would be good to fix as
soon as possible.
+1
2013/3/28 Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>
> I've just noticed one more problem in UI, but I would suggest have a
> release now without the fix.
>
> User properties screen contains useless "SIP Account Settings" section
> which is actuallu empty. it seems like this is not a regression and
> presents in previous version too.
> I am going to file a bug about this.
>
> Again - I don't think this is a blocker for the release.
>
> Best regards.
> Irina.
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Same for me. I have not installed release myself, yet if Denis's
> > installation correctly matches a release, I spend a good amount of time
> > using it.
> >
> > Right now the only thing which attracted my eye is inconsistent
> microphone
> > status indication when entering conference or updating conference
> settings.
> > This is not a blocker.
> >
> > --
> > With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
> > Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
> > http://dataved.ru/
> > +7 916 562 8095
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:13 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I had no time to check the signatures and md5 sums yet.
> > > But in respect to all the improvments to the testing I think the
> release
> > > will be successful.
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > > Am 28.03.2013 03:23 schrieb "Irina Arkhipets" <
> irina.arkhipets@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I hope it's not too late - I've just tried RC3 and tink it's OK.
> > > >
> > > > +1 from me :)
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Irina.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Vasya <va...@unipro.ru> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Vasiliy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> > 2.1.0
> > > > RC3
> > > > >>
> > > > >> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/**README
> > <
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/openmeetings/**
> > > > >> tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG<
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.**org/repos/dist/dev/**
> > > > >> openmeetings/2.1/rc3/<
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/**repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.**1RC3/
> <
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > > >>
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/**dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/**KEYS<
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [ ] +1 approve
> > > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My vote is +1.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>.
I've just noticed one more problem in UI, but I would suggest have a
release now without the fix.
User properties screen contains useless "SIP Account Settings" section
which is actuallu empty. it seems like this is not a regression and
presents in previous version too.
I am going to file a bug about this.
Again - I don't think this is a blocker for the release.
Best regards.
Irina.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Same for me. I have not installed release myself, yet if Denis's
> installation correctly matches a release, I spend a good amount of time
> using it.
>
> Right now the only thing which attracted my eye is inconsistent microphone
> status indication when entering conference or updating conference settings.
> This is not a blocker.
>
> --
> With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
> Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
> http://dataved.ru/
> +7 916 562 8095
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:13 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I had no time to check the signatures and md5 sums yet.
> > But in respect to all the improvments to the testing I think the release
> > will be successful.
> >
> > Sebastian
> > Am 28.03.2013 03:23 schrieb "Irina Arkhipets" <irina.arkhipets@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I hope it's not too late - I've just tried RC3 and tink it's OK.
> > >
> > > +1 from me :)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Irina.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Vasya <va...@unipro.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello All,
> > > >
> > > > I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Vasiliy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > > >>
> > > >> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings
> 2.1.0
> > > RC3
> > > >>
> > > >> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > > >>
> > > >> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/**README
> <
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README>
> > > >>
> > > >> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/openmeetings/**
> > > >> tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG<
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG>
> > > >>
> > > >> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.**org/repos/dist/dev/**
> > > >> openmeetings/2.1/rc3/<
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/>
> > > >>
> > > >> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/**repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.**1RC3/<
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/>
> > > >>
> > > >> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > > >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/**dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/**KEYS<
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS>
> > > >>
> > > >> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ ] +1 approve
> > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > >>
> > > >> My vote is +1.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Same for me. I have not installed release myself, yet if Denis's
installation correctly matches a release, I spend a good amount of time
using it.
Right now the only thing which attracted my eye is inconsistent microphone
status indication when entering conference or updating conference settings.
This is not a blocker.
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:13 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had no time to check the signatures and md5 sums yet.
> But in respect to all the improvments to the testing I think the release
> will be successful.
>
> Sebastian
> Am 28.03.2013 03:23 schrieb "Irina Arkhipets" <ir...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I hope it's not too late - I've just tried RC3 and tink it's OK.
> >
> > +1 from me :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Irina.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Vasya <va...@unipro.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vasiliy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0
> > RC3
> > >>
> > >> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> > >>
> > >> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> > >>
> > >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/**README<
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README>
> > >>
> > >> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/openmeetings/**
> > >> tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG<
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG>
> > >>
> > >> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.**org/repos/dist/dev/**
> > >> openmeetings/2.1/rc3/<
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/>
> > >>
> > >> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/**repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.**1RC3/<
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/>
> > >>
> > >> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/**dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/**KEYS<
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS>
> > >>
> > >> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1 approve
> > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >>
> > >> My vote is +1.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
I had no time to check the signatures and md5 sums yet.
But in respect to all the improvments to the testing I think the release
will be successful.
Sebastian
Am 28.03.2013 03:23 schrieb "Irina Arkhipets" <ir...@gmail.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> I hope it's not too late - I've just tried RC3 and tink it's OK.
>
> +1 from me :)
>
> Best regards,
> Irina.
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Vasya <va...@unipro.ru> wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vasiliy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> >
> >> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
> >>
> >> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0
> RC3
> >>
> >> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
> >>
> >> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
> >>
> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/**README<
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README>
> >>
> >> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/openmeetings/**
> >> tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG<
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG>
> >>
> >> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.**org/repos/dist/dev/**
> >> openmeetings/2.1/rc3/<
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/>
> >>
> >> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/**repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.**1RC3/<
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/>
> >>
> >> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/**dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/**KEYS<
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS>
> >>
> >> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 approve
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >> My vote is +1.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ir...@gmail.com>.
Hi All,
I hope it's not too late - I've just tried RC3 and tink it's OK.
+1 from me :)
Best regards,
Irina.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Vasya <va...@unipro.ru> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Vasiliy.
>
>
>
>
> On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
>
>> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>>
>> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC3
>>
>> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>>
>> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/**README<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README>
>>
>> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/openmeetings/**
>> tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG>
>>
>> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.**org/repos/dist/dev/**
>> openmeetings/2.1/rc3/<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/>
>>
>> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/**repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.**1RC3/<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/>
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/**dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/**KEYS<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS>
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> My vote is +1.
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Vasya <va...@unipro.ru>.
Hello All,
I have tested RC3 and not found critical errors.
+1
Thanks,
Vasiliy.
On 22.03.2013 21:52, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> Dear OpenMeetings Community,
>
> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC3
>
> RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel
>
> Main changes are covered in the Readme:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README
>
> Full Changelog:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG
>
> Release artefacts:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/
>
> Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> My vote is +1.
>
>