[DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>]

Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
(please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).

Thanks!

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Alex Heneveld <al...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

It has to be a judgment call. I tend to agree this is a blocker.

Best
Alex

On 27 Apr 2017 15:14, "Geoff Macartney" <ge...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:

> What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
> don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we create
> some?
>
> My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
>
> 1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
> should block the release.
> 2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
> - if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn, then
> it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
> - if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not block
> this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely not
> causing users problems)
> 3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
> regression?).
>
> what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?
>
> Geoff
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 Richard,
> >
> > I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
> >
> > Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
> > agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
> > a release?
> >
> > On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
> > > using WinRmCommandSensor".
> > >
> > > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
> > >
> > > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major
> issue
> > in
> > > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
> > > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this will
> > > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
> > itself.
> > >
> > > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
> > currently
> > > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
> > > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy code
> > > plus a fix into a new package.
> > >
> > > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
> > >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>]

Hi Geoff,

Yes you are correct. With an extended weekend + ensuing backlog of work at
$DAYJOB, this has been neglected somewhat. I'll get back to it.

Richard.

On 3 May 2017 at 09:30, Geoff Macartney <ge...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:

> hi all,
>
> can we just clarify -- I think from the discussion above we concluded the
> RC2 was blocked, but it might be worth an email confirming that?
>
>
> If we're going to do an RC3 would it be possible to squeeze
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/662 into it? (As mentioned
> here last week.)
>
> cheers
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 at 09:09 Geoff Macartney <
> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good to me
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 21:34 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
> >> there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.
> >>
> >> In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
> >> suggest: it's a minor feature so would probably not be encountered by
> many
> >> users. It's a new feature in this version, so it wouldn't be counted as
> a
> >> regression. But for those who do try to use the new feature, the failure
> >> mode is pretty serious.
> >>
> >> Often it's better to get opinions and form a consensus rather than
> write a
> >> rule book to predict all future problems. You know how Apache likes
> >> "consensus" and voting about things ;-)
> >>
> >> Consensus in this case seems pretty clear to cancelling the current vote
> >> and making another release candidate.
> >>
> >> On 27 Apr 2017 3:14 pm, "Geoff Macartney" <
> >> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if
> we
> >> > don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we
> >> create
> >> > some?
> >> >
> >> > My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
> >> > should block the release.
> >> > 2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
> >> > - if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn,
> >> then
> >> > it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
> >> > - if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not
> >> block
> >> > this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely
> not
> >> > causing users problems)
> >> > 3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
> >> > regression?).
> >> >
> >> > what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?
> >> >
> >> > Geoff
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <
> >> andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 Richard,
> >> > >
> >> > > I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we
> should
> >> > > agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to
> validate
> >> > > a release?
> >> > >
> >> > > On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > > > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails
> >> when
> >> > > > using WinRmCommandSensor".
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major
> >> > issue
> >> > > in
> >> > > > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the
> >> Brooklyn
> >> > > > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this
> >> will
> >> > > > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
> >> > > itself.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
> >> > > currently
> >> > > > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible
> >> to
> >> > > > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy
> >> code
> >> > > > plus a fix into a new package.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What do others think?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks
> >> > > > Richard.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2]
> >> release
> >> > > >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks!
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Geoff Macartney <ge...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

hi all,

can we just clarify -- I think from the discussion above we concluded the
RC2 was blocked, but it might be worth an email confirming that?


If we're going to do an RC3 would it be possible to squeeze
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/662 into it? (As mentioned
here last week.)

cheers
Geoff




On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 at 09:09 Geoff Macartney <
geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:

> Sounds good to me
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 21:34 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
>> there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.
>>
>> In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
>> suggest: it's a minor feature so would probably not be encountered by many
>> users. It's a new feature in this version, so it wouldn't be counted as a
>> regression. But for those who do try to use the new feature, the failure
>> mode is pretty serious.
>>
>> Often it's better to get opinions and form a consensus rather than write a
>> rule book to predict all future problems. You know how Apache likes
>> "consensus" and voting about things ;-)
>>
>> Consensus in this case seems pretty clear to cancelling the current vote
>> and making another release candidate.
>>
>> On 27 Apr 2017 3:14 pm, "Geoff Macartney" <
>> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
>> > don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we
>> create
>> > some?
>> >
>> > My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
>> >
>> > 1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
>> > should block the release.
>> > 2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
>> > - if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn,
>> then
>> > it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
>> > - if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not
>> block
>> > this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely not
>> > causing users problems)
>> > 3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
>> > regression?).
>> >
>> > what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?
>> >
>> > Geoff
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <
>> andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 Richard,
>> > >
>> > > I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
>> > >
>> > > Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
>> > > agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
>> > > a release?
>> > >
>> > > On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails
>> when
>> > > > using WinRmCommandSensor".
>> > > >
>> > > > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
>> > > >
>> > > > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major
>> > issue
>> > > in
>> > > > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the
>> Brooklyn
>> > > > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this
>> will
>> > > > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
>> > > itself.
>> > > >
>> > > > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
>> > > currently
>> > > > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible
>> to
>> > > > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy
>> code
>> > > > plus a fix into a new package.
>> > > >
>> > > > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
>> > > >
>> > > > What do others think?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks
>> > > > Richard.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2]
>> release
>> > > >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks!
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Geoff Macartney <ge...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

Sounds good to me



On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 21:34 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:

> It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
> there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.
>
> In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
> suggest: it's a minor feature so would probably not be encountered by many
> users. It's a new feature in this version, so it wouldn't be counted as a
> regression. But for those who do try to use the new feature, the failure
> mode is pretty serious.
>
> Often it's better to get opinions and form a consensus rather than write a
> rule book to predict all future problems. You know how Apache likes
> "consensus" and voting about things ;-)
>
> Consensus in this case seems pretty clear to cancelling the current vote
> and making another release candidate.
>
> On 27 Apr 2017 3:14 pm, "Geoff Macartney" <
> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
> > don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we
> create
> > some?
> >
> > My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
> >
> > 1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
> > should block the release.
> > 2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
> > - if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn, then
> > it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
> > - if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not
> block
> > this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely not
> > causing users problems)
> > 3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
> > regression?).
> >
> > what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <
> andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 Richard,
> > >
> > > I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
> > >
> > > Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
> > > agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
> > > a release?
> > >
> > > On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails
> when
> > > > using WinRmCommandSensor".
> > > >
> > > > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
> > > >
> > > > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major
> > issue
> > > in
> > > > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
> > > > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this
> will
> > > > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
> > > itself.
> > > >
> > > > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
> > > currently
> > > > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
> > > > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy
> code
> > > > plus a fix into a new package.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
> > > >
> > > > What do others think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2]
> release
> > > >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>]

It is a tricky thing to come up with hard-and-fast rules for, so I think
there will have to be some subjectivity in the decision.

In this case the bug doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories you
suggest: it's a minor feature so would probably not be encountered by many
users. It's a new feature in this version, so it wouldn't be counted as a
regression. But for those who do try to use the new feature, the failure
mode is pretty serious.

Often it's better to get opinions and form a consensus rather than write a
rule book to predict all future problems. You know how Apache likes
"consensus" and voting about things ;-)

Consensus in this case seems pretty clear to cancelling the current vote
and making another release candidate.

On 27 Apr 2017 3:14 pm, "Geoff Macartney" <ge...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:

> What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
> don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we create
> some?
>
> My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:
>
> 1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
> should block the release.
> 2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
> - if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn, then
> it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
> - if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not block
> this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely not
> causing users problems)
> 3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
> regression?).
>
> what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?
>
> Geoff
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 Richard,
> >
> > I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
> >
> > Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
> > agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
> > a release?
> >
> > On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
> > > using WinRmCommandSensor".
> > >
> > > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
> > >
> > > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major
> issue
> > in
> > > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
> > > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this will
> > > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
> > itself.
> > >
> > > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
> > currently
> > > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
> > > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy code
> > > plus a fix into a new package.
> > >
> > > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
> > >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Geoff Macartney <ge...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

What are our guidelines on what constitutes a release blocker, or, if we
don't have any specific guidelines other than gut feeling, should we create
some?

My own suggestion for such guidelines would be something like:

1. Clearly any "very serious" issues (by some definition of the words)
should block the release.
2. For "moderately serious" issues, I would suggest:
- if the issue was not present in the previous releases of Brooklyn, then
it should block this release (don't want to introduce regressions)
- if the issue was present in the previous releases, then it need not block
this release (If it hasn't been reported until now then it is likely not
causing users problems)
3. For "not serious issues" don't block the release (even if it is a
regression?).

what category does BROOKLYN-493 [1] fall into?

Geoff

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-493


On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Andrea Turli <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:

> +1 Richard,
>
> I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.
>
> Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
> agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
> a release?
>
> On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
> > using WinRmCommandSensor".
> >
> > Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
> >
> > In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major issue
> in
> > a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
> > process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this will
> > give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start
> itself.
> >
> > In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is
> currently
> > little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
> > workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy code
> > plus a fix into a new package.
> >
> > Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Richard.
> >
> >
> > On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
> >> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Andrea Turli <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

+1 Richard,

I personally consider any rebinding issues a release blocker.

Sorry for not having seen it during my tests. Does this mean we should
agree on a minimum amount of "live" tests that should pass to validate
a release?

On 26 April 2017 at 09:01, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
> using WinRmCommandSensor".
>
> Do we consider this to be a release blocker?
>
> In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major issue in
> a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
> process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this will
> give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start itself.
>
> In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is currently
> little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
> workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy code
> plus a fix into a new package.
>
> Personally I'd call this a release blocker.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Thanks
> Richard.
>
>
> On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
>> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.11.0 [rc2]

[Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>]

Bug BROOKLYN-493[1] has been reported this morning: "Rebind fails when
using WinRmCommandSensor".

Do we consider this to be a release blocker?

In favour of blocking the release: rebind failures will be a major issue in
a "real" deployment of Brooklyn - the ability to restart the Brooklyn
process after a failure is an important feature, and breaking this will
give an impression that our product cannot reliably stop and start itself.

In favour of continuing the release: it's for a feature which is currently
little used. I've heard through other channels that it is possible to
workaround the bug with a handcrafted bundle that clones the buggy code
plus a fix into a new package.

Personally I'd call this a release blocker.

What do others think?

Thanks
Richard.


On 18 April 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:

> Please use this thread for discussions about the 0.11.0 [rc2] release
> (please keep the actual vote thread just for votes).
>
> Thanks!
>