release plan and communicating about changes [Re: [VOTE/WSIF] 2.0 release branch (WSIF_2_0_BRANCH)]

[Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>]

Anthony Elder wrote:

>What is going on???
>
hi Ant,

i thought that is precisely why we have release plan checked into 
repository, irc chats, and mailing list to keep everybody informed about 
who is working on what for 2.0 release. i am afraid that seeing CVS logs 
is not enough when putting release together ...

>We've just had a discussion about the RC2 that Alek has built and that its
>from a personal branch which has had committed changes backed out.
>
i did not do a _personal_ branch. but it is  very common practice to 
have a branch before release to allow code stabilization and to allow 
active development on main branch.

as it seemed that you were doing commits to main branch that were not in 
release plan i have assumed that you do not want them in the 2.0 release.

>We've just had a vote on this and so far have four +1 votes to NOT using
>that branch, and four +1 votes to having an RC2 based off head of stream
>later in the week when some bugs have been resolved.
>
the first thing i proposed and had everybody to agree was that 
RELEASE_TASKS.txt defines release plan and what is not in this file is 
not in release.

in our release plan we have only agreed that that critical bugs should 
be incorporated into release and as far as i can tell nobody added any 
bugs or that we discussed any of them to be added ...

here is relevant part of RELEASE_TAKS.txt:
(...) * put HERE all remaining tasks, for example: remaining critical bugs including URLs such as:
  Bug 13646 WSIFOperation_ApacheAxis fails to set up Call's Parameter list http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13646
  and regularly monitor bugzilla bugs and decide as appropriate if fix should be included in RCx or final
(...)



>In case its note clear, we've just had a vote on this and so far have four
>+1 votes to NOT using that Alek's back level branch, and four +1 votes to
>having an RC2 based off head of stream later in the week when some bugs
>have been resolved.
>
i would like to do this by consensus and we already had consensus on 
release plan i though: that we follow what was agreed upon and for this 
release all decisions regarding release were recorded in RELEASE_TASKS.txt.

i have created branch with intention to facilitate creation of 2.0 
release but it seems that i failed to communicate well enough what it is 
for. i will try to do better job in communicating about such actions in 
future and delaying any big changes until wee discuss them on IRC. i 
would like everybody else to do the same (next irc chat is scheduled for 
this thursday).

thanks,

alek

-- 
"Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. 
What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr