You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hop.apache.org by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com> on 2021/01/03 10:35:53 UTC
[DISCUSS] Apache Hop (incubating) 0.50-rc2
Hi All,
Our 0.50 Release Candidate 2 still contains a couple of issues making it
hard to pass the vote.
see following mail:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r261e1353cd17bafe2eef4108b45677f31419ab5447d8d3d770bdead5%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Our Master branch is already 130 commits ahead of our release branch.
Because the issues listed involve changing and cleaning up quite a lot of
our files my personal suggestion would be to add these changes to our 0.60
release and skip the 0.50 release (move all closed tickets to 0.60 for the
changelist).
We need to do a sweep of all our files and remove everything that is
currently not being used.
Cleanup our RAT excludes to the bare minimum and fix our headers.
What is your opinion on this?
Cheers,
Hans
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hop (incubating) 0.50-rc2
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
No worries, we want to go to 0.60 not because of frustrations but because
we have made so much progress. It's really awesome to see how fast Hop is
progressing.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:32 PM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd also recommend keeping up the momentum and releasing 0.50. All the
> issue resolved in the process will also unblock the 0.60 release.
>
> -Max
>
> On 04.01.21 19:49, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > Justin Mclean is chair of the IPMC and his reviews of releases are
> always very thorough and fair. I am not at all surprised that he found
> issues. Still, I know it can be demoralizing when an RC passes the project
> vote and fails in the IPMC vote.
> >
> > I suggest that you let the IPMC vote run for 3 days to see if other
> people raise issues, then cancel the vote and tell the IPMC what will be
> your next steps.
> >
> > As for whether to proceed with 0.50-rc2 or move on to 0.60, I don’t have
> a strong opinion on this. Either way, let’s just keep up the momentum to
> get a release out. The next release will be easier, I promise.
> >
> > Take Justin’s suggestion to add to issues to the ‘work in progress
> disclaimer’, if possible. This is a relatively process added by the IPMC; I
> should have suggested it but it slipped my mind.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:30 AM, Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agreed if we first clean out the old samples and steps code as well as
> the
> >> very old welcome page which is *still* included in the build.
> >>
> >> Old stuff like that will continue to bite us.
> >> I know I've asked for this a few times and I don't want to force
> anything
> >> on anyone but at this point my fingers are itching so hard when hovering
> >> over the delete button it's starting to annoy me ;-)
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> Op zo 3 jan. 2021 11:36 schreef Hans Van Akelyen <
> hans.van.akelyen@gmail.com
> >>> :
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Our 0.50 Release Candidate 2 still contains a couple of issues making
> it
> >>> hard to pass the vote.
> >>> see following mail:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r261e1353cd17bafe2eef4108b45677f31419ab5447d8d3d770bdead5%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> >>>
> >>> Our Master branch is already 130 commits ahead of our release branch.
> >>> Because the issues listed involve changing and cleaning up quite a lot
> of
> >>> our files my personal suggestion would be to add these changes to our
> 0.60
> >>> release and skip the 0.50 release (move all closed tickets to 0.60 for
> the
> >>> changelist).
> >>>
> >>> We need to do a sweep of all our files and remove everything that is
> >>> currently not being used.
> >>> Cleanup our RAT excludes to the bare minimum and fix our headers.
> >>>
> >>> What is your opinion on this?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >
>
--
Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
*✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
☎ +32486972937
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hop (incubating) 0.50-rc2
Posted by Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org>.
I'd also recommend keeping up the momentum and releasing 0.50. All the
issue resolved in the process will also unblock the 0.60 release.
-Max
On 04.01.21 19:49, Julian Hyde wrote:
> Justin Mclean is chair of the IPMC and his reviews of releases are always very thorough and fair. I am not at all surprised that he found issues. Still, I know it can be demoralizing when an RC passes the project vote and fails in the IPMC vote.
>
> I suggest that you let the IPMC vote run for 3 days to see if other people raise issues, then cancel the vote and tell the IPMC what will be your next steps.
>
> As for whether to proceed with 0.50-rc2 or move on to 0.60, I don’t have a strong opinion on this. Either way, let’s just keep up the momentum to get a release out. The next release will be easier, I promise.
>
> Take Justin’s suggestion to add to issues to the ‘work in progress disclaimer’, if possible. This is a relatively process added by the IPMC; I should have suggested it but it slipped my mind.
>
> Julian
>
>
>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:30 AM, Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed if we first clean out the old samples and steps code as well as the
>> very old welcome page which is *still* included in the build.
>>
>> Old stuff like that will continue to bite us.
>> I know I've asked for this a few times and I don't want to force anything
>> on anyone but at this point my fingers are itching so hard when hovering
>> over the delete button it's starting to annoy me ;-)
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> Op zo 3 jan. 2021 11:36 schreef Hans Van Akelyen <hans.van.akelyen@gmail.com
>>> :
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Our 0.50 Release Candidate 2 still contains a couple of issues making it
>>> hard to pass the vote.
>>> see following mail:
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r261e1353cd17bafe2eef4108b45677f31419ab5447d8d3d770bdead5%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> Our Master branch is already 130 commits ahead of our release branch.
>>> Because the issues listed involve changing and cleaning up quite a lot of
>>> our files my personal suggestion would be to add these changes to our 0.60
>>> release and skip the 0.50 release (move all closed tickets to 0.60 for the
>>> changelist).
>>>
>>> We need to do a sweep of all our files and remove everything that is
>>> currently not being used.
>>> Cleanup our RAT excludes to the bare minimum and fix our headers.
>>>
>>> What is your opinion on this?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hans
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hop (incubating) 0.50-rc2
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@gmail.com>.
Justin Mclean is chair of the IPMC and his reviews of releases are always very thorough and fair. I am not at all surprised that he found issues. Still, I know it can be demoralizing when an RC passes the project vote and fails in the IPMC vote.
I suggest that you let the IPMC vote run for 3 days to see if other people raise issues, then cancel the vote and tell the IPMC what will be your next steps.
As for whether to proceed with 0.50-rc2 or move on to 0.60, I don’t have a strong opinion on this. Either way, let’s just keep up the momentum to get a release out. The next release will be easier, I promise.
Take Justin’s suggestion to add to issues to the ‘work in progress disclaimer’, if possible. This is a relatively process added by the IPMC; I should have suggested it but it slipped my mind.
Julian
> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:30 AM, Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Agreed if we first clean out the old samples and steps code as well as the
> very old welcome page which is *still* included in the build.
>
> Old stuff like that will continue to bite us.
> I know I've asked for this a few times and I don't want to force anything
> on anyone but at this point my fingers are itching so hard when hovering
> over the delete button it's starting to annoy me ;-)
>
> Matt
>
>
> Op zo 3 jan. 2021 11:36 schreef Hans Van Akelyen <hans.van.akelyen@gmail.com
>> :
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Our 0.50 Release Candidate 2 still contains a couple of issues making it
>> hard to pass the vote.
>> see following mail:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r261e1353cd17bafe2eef4108b45677f31419ab5447d8d3d770bdead5%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>>
>> Our Master branch is already 130 commits ahead of our release branch.
>> Because the issues listed involve changing and cleaning up quite a lot of
>> our files my personal suggestion would be to add these changes to our 0.60
>> release and skip the 0.50 release (move all closed tickets to 0.60 for the
>> changelist).
>>
>> We need to do a sweep of all our files and remove everything that is
>> currently not being used.
>> Cleanup our RAT excludes to the bare minimum and fix our headers.
>>
>> What is your opinion on this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hans
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hop (incubating) 0.50-rc2
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
Agreed if we first clean out the old samples and steps code as well as the
very old welcome page which is *still* included in the build.
Old stuff like that will continue to bite us.
I know I've asked for this a few times and I don't want to force anything
on anyone but at this point my fingers are itching so hard when hovering
over the delete button it's starting to annoy me ;-)
Matt
Op zo 3 jan. 2021 11:36 schreef Hans Van Akelyen <hans.van.akelyen@gmail.com
>:
> Hi All,
>
> Our 0.50 Release Candidate 2 still contains a couple of issues making it
> hard to pass the vote.
> see following mail:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r261e1353cd17bafe2eef4108b45677f31419ab5447d8d3d770bdead5%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> Our Master branch is already 130 commits ahead of our release branch.
> Because the issues listed involve changing and cleaning up quite a lot of
> our files my personal suggestion would be to add these changes to our 0.60
> release and skip the 0.50 release (move all closed tickets to 0.60 for the
> changelist).
>
> We need to do a sweep of all our files and remove everything that is
> currently not being used.
> Cleanup our RAT excludes to the bare minimum and fix our headers.
>
> What is your opinion on this?
>
> Cheers,
> Hans
>