You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> on 2013/06/17 11:25:13 UTC
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
>> joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the 0.6 release:
>>>
>>> I've not seen any specific objections in this thread to that being
>>> released
>>> - other than relations being "about two weeks away". That as about two
>>> weeks ago. It appears to be in a stable state judging by our latest
>>> nightly
>>> build[1].
>>>
>>> Our last release has now been over a month ago (a bug fix), while out
>>> last
>>> 0.x release was packaged up over two months ago. Any improvements that
>>> have
>>> gone into trunk since are not available to those downloading Bloodhound
>>> every day[2].
>>>
>>> I believe we should package up a release in the next few days, then move
>>> on
>>> to working towards 0.7. Are there any volunteers for release manager?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> [1] https://bh-demo1.apache.org/products/%40/ticket/156
>>> [2] http://goo.gl/#analytics/goo.gl/D4hf5/month
>>
>>
>> I'm happy to do this release if others are busy working on the final
>> features.
>>
>
> I'm thinking of starting to prepare the release on Saturday since I have a
> solid 2 days free before then to do testing, and about a dozen minor things
> I'd like to fix before the release. Please let me know if you see any
> issues with this plan.
>
> Thanks,
> - Ryan
>
You will no doubt have noticed that I still have not started the release
process. I believe there are still too many important issues that need to
be resolved, and through last week the number of issues was increasing
rather than decreasing as we got feedback from users on IRC and the mailing
list.
The 14 open tickets in Milestone Release 6 represents the issues that I
think should be resolved. There are a few that could be rolled forward:
#501, #461, #444, #201; but I've left those in the milestone because they
are close to being resolved. At least two of those 14 tickets have patches
from Olemis that just need to be reviewed and applied, and several other
tickets just need minor follow-up.
There are two important issues, #554 and #548, that I'm giving priority to
at the moment, and I also have a bloodhound.db file from avp that came out
of a discussion on IRC. He had a fairly complex series of problems that
started with the "qct not defined" error that was resolved in #544, but
even after that issue is resolved he still cannot create tickets. I will
open a ticket for that after I have some time to sort out the discussion
that took place on the mailing list and can describe the issue in detail.
It would be nice to get the release out as soon as possible, but I feel it
is more important to resolve these issues, otherwise we will cause our
users problems and end up devoting more of our time supporting users that
experience those problems.
- Ryan
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Anze Staric <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's been about two weeks since we started closing tickets that should
>> >> be resolved before the release, but some are still open. If I
>> >> understood Ryan correctly, #201, #444, #461 and #501 were close to
>> >> being resolved two weeks ago. Any status updates?
>> >>
>> >> #446 seems to be fixed in trac. Are we updating the trac version in
>> >> our repository before the release?
>> >>
>>
>> I recommend not to do so and defer this to Release 7 or 8 in spite of
>> spending some time testing what'd happen with vendor branch update.
>> Besides, I guess the task should not be a trivial task these days ...
>>
>
> #446 is fixed in Trac, but the changes are entirely isolated to the
> templates so whether it is or is not fixed in Trac has no impact on our
> ability to fix it in Bloodhound. I prepared the change a while ago and was
> waiting for feedback on the Trac ticket to proceed - that never happened,
> and I've since pushed the change to the Trac core. If I find time to
> adequately test the change in Bloodhound today I will push it, otherwise I
> will defer until the next release.
>
> In general though, I think our policy is to only update Trac when there is
> a stable release. I'm hoping we can get Trac 1.0.2 released by the end of
> July.
>
I need to take another close look at #569 since I stumbled across some
cases in which the View/Edit link doesn't direct to the correct product. I
had previously thought this issue was fixed. After I get that sorted out in
the morning, I will finally proceed with the release.
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Anze Staric <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> It's been about two weeks since we started closing tickets that should
> >> be resolved before the release, but some are still open. If I
> >> understood Ryan correctly, #201, #444, #461 and #501 were close to
> >> being resolved two weeks ago. Any status updates?
> >>
> >> #446 seems to be fixed in trac. Are we updating the trac version in
> >> our repository before the release?
> >>
>
> I recommend not to do so and defer this to Release 7 or 8 in spite of
> spending some time testing what'd happen with vendor branch update.
> Besides, I guess the task should not be a trivial task these days ...
>
#446 is fixed in Trac, but the changes are entirely isolated to the
templates so whether it is or is not fixed in Trac has no impact on our
ability to fix it in Bloodhound. I prepared the change a while ago and was
waiting for feedback on the Trac ticket to proceed - that never happened,
and I've since pushed the change to the Trac core. If I find time to
adequately test the change in Bloodhound today I will push it, otherwise I
will defer until the next release.
In general though, I think our policy is to only update Trac when there is
a stable release. I'm hoping we can get Trac 1.0.2 released by the end of
July.
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Anze Staric <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's been about two weeks since we started closing tickets that should
>> be resolved before the release, but some are still open. If I
>> understood Ryan correctly, #201, #444, #461 and #501 were close to
>> being resolved two weeks ago. Any status updates?
>>
>> #446 seems to be fixed in trac. Are we updating the trac version in
>> our repository before the release?
>>
I recommend not to do so and defer this to Release 7 or 8 in spite of
spending some time testing what'd happen with vendor branch update.
Besides, I guess the task should not be a trivial task these days ...
>> The rest of the tickets (#503, #509, #540) look like they are fixed,
>> but have not been closed/reviewed yet.
>> Can those who worked on them
>> please correct me, if there are still some things that have not been
>> fixed.
>>
FWIW , I use the patches for #509 in order to run the functional test suite .
[...]
>
> feeling
> better since Saturday
>
good ! :)
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Anze Staric <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been about two weeks since we started closing tickets that should
> be resolved before the release, but some are still open. If I
> understood Ryan correctly, #201, #444, #461 and #501 were close to
> being resolved two weeks ago. Any status updates?
>
> #446 seems to be fixed in trac. Are we updating the trac version in
> our repository before the release?
>
> The rest of the tickets (#503, #509, #540) look like they are fixed,
> but have not been closed/reviewed yet. Can those who worked on them
> please correct me, if there are still some things that have not been
> fixed.
>
> In short, we are close, but not there yet. If there is anything I can
> do to speed up resolving these tickets, please let me know.
Hi Anze,
I have work for those ticket that I'll commit today (including minor
follow-ups to #503, #509, #540). The exceptions are #444 and #501 which can
be moved forward with no harm.
I'll be starting the release process later today. I had planned to do this
last week but I came down with something akin to food poisoning; feeling
better since Saturday but I've been catching up the past 3 days.
- Ryan
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Anze Staric <an...@gmail.com>.
It's been about two weeks since we started closing tickets that should
be resolved before the release, but some are still open. If I
understood Ryan correctly, #201, #444, #461 and #501 were close to
being resolved two weeks ago. Any status updates?
#446 seems to be fixed in trac. Are we updating the trac version in
our repository before the release?
The rest of the tickets (#503, #509, #540) look like they are fixed,
but have not been closed/reviewed yet. Can those who worked on them
please correct me, if there are still some things that have not been
fixed.
In short, we are close, but not there yet. If there is anything I can
do to speed up resolving these tickets, please let me know.
---
Ticket quick links:
#201 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/201
#444 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/444
#446 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/446
#461 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/461
#501 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/501
#503 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/503
#509 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/509
#540 - https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/540
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si> wrote:
>
> On 21. Jun, 2013, at 9:46, Anze Staric wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> IMO, if the default_product does not exist, we should:
>>> 1. check whether the preset default (@) exists and use that
>>> 2. if @ is not available, use the first product in the DB
>>> (and a warning to the user would also be nice)
>>
>> What about simply showing and error with message along the lines of
>>
>> Cannot create a ticket in non-existant product (product_prefix).
>> Please select different product or [link_to_create_new_product |
>> create product_prefix].
>>
>> (assuming that user can select in which product the ticket gets created in).
>
> Yes, in that case it would make sense. However this implies #569 is fixed
> first, but once that is done it will be impossible to trigger #568 anyhow
> if my understanding is correct. That is, the product dropdown will list all
> products from the DB (not including the default_product, since it's not
> stored in the DB), so the user will not be able to select the default_product
> at all.
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si>.
On 21. Jun, 2013, at 9:46, Anze Staric wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si> wrote:
> [...]
>> IMO, if the default_product does not exist, we should:
>> 1. check whether the preset default (@) exists and use that
>> 2. if @ is not available, use the first product in the DB
>> (and a warning to the user would also be nice)
>
> What about simply showing and error with message along the lines of
>
> Cannot create a ticket in non-existant product (product_prefix).
> Please select different product or [link_to_create_new_product |
> create product_prefix].
>
> (assuming that user can select in which product the ticket gets created in).
Yes, in that case it would make sense. However this implies #569 is fixed
first, but once that is done it will be impossible to trigger #568 anyhow
if my understanding is correct. That is, the product dropdown will list all
products from the DB (not including the default_product, since it's not
stored in the DB), so the user will not be able to select the default_product
at all.
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Anze Staric <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si> wrote:
[...]
> IMO, if the default_product does not exist, we should:
> 1. check whether the preset default (@) exists and use that
> 2. if @ is not available, use the first product in the DB
> (and a warning to the user would also be nice)
What about simply showing and error with message along the lines of
Cannot create a ticket in non-existant product (product_prefix).
Please select different product or [link_to_create_new_product |
create product_prefix].
(assuming that user can select in which product the ticket gets created in).
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si>.
On 20. Jun, 2013, at 19:45, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17. Jun, 2013, at 11:25, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Ryan Ollos <ryan.ollos@wandisco.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
>>>>>> joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding the 0.6 release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've not seen any specific objections in this thread to that being
>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>> - other than relations being "about two weeks away". That as about
>>> two
>>>>>>> weeks ago. It appears to be in a stable state judging by our latest
>>>>>>> nightly
>>>>>>> build[1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our last release has now been over a month ago (a bug fix), while out
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> 0.x release was packaged up over two months ago. Any improvements
>>> that
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> gone into trunk since are not available to those downloading
>>> Bloodhound
>>>>>>> every day[2].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe we should package up a release in the next few days, then
>>> move
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> to working towards 0.7. Are there any volunteers for release manager?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://bh-demo1.apache.org/products/%40/ticket/156
>>>>>>> [2] http://goo.gl/#analytics/goo.gl/D4hf5/month
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm happy to do this release if others are busy working on the final
>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of starting to prepare the release on Saturday since I
>>> have a
>>>>> solid 2 days free before then to do testing, and about a dozen minor
>>> things
>>>>> I'd like to fix before the release. Please let me know if you see any
>>>>> issues with this plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> - Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You will no doubt have noticed that I still have not started the release
>>>> process. I believe there are still too many important issues that need
>>> to
>>>> be resolved, and through last week the number of issues was increasing
>>>> rather than decreasing as we got feedback from users on IRC and the
>>> mailing
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> The 14 open tickets in Milestone Release 6 represents the issues that I
>>>> think should be resolved. There are a few that could be rolled forward:
>>>> #501, #461, #444, #201; but I've left those in the milestone because
>>> they
>>>> are close to being resolved. At least two of those 14 tickets have
>>> patches
>>>> from Olemis that just need to be reviewed and applied, and several other
>>>> tickets just need minor follow-up.
>>>>
>>>> There are two important issues, #554 and #548, that I'm giving priority
>>> to
>>>> at the moment, and I also have a bloodhound.db file from avp that came
>>> out
>>>> of a discussion on IRC. He had a fairly complex series of problems that
>>>> started with the "qct not defined" error that was resolved in #544, but
>>>> even after that issue is resolved he still cannot create tickets. I will
>>>> open a ticket for that after I have some time to sort out the discussion
>>>> that took place on the mailing list and can describe the issue in
>>> detail.
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to get the release out as soon as possible, but I feel
>>> it
>>>> is more important to resolve these issues, otherwise we will cause our
>>>> users problems and end up devoting more of our time supporting users
>>> that
>>>> experience those problems.
>>>>
>>>> - Ryan
>>>
>>> I see that most of the tickets for Milestone Release 6 are assigned to
>>> you.
>>> Would it help if others try to tackle at least some of them?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, definitely. #548 and #554 would probably be solved much quicker by
>> anyone that is more familiar with the MultiProduct architecture. Thanks!
>>
>
> #568 and #569 are both potential blockers for the release. Please take a
> look and let me know if you consider them to be blockers.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/568
> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/569
The #568 I think is a blocker, since we allow setting default_product
to a non-existing product prefix. This causes tickets to be created in
that (non-existing) scope, and also results in widget and query errors
(TicketQuery -> LookupError).
IMO, if the default_product does not exist, we should:
1. check whether the preset default (@) exists and use that
2. if @ is not available, use the first product in the DB
(and a warning to the user would also be nice)
For the #569 I'm not sure, it has less dire consequences. I suppose we
could move it to 0.7 and list it under known issues if everyone agrees.
--
matevz
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17. Jun, 2013, at 11:25, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Ryan Ollos <ryan.ollos@wandisco.com
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
>> >>> joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Regarding the 0.6 release:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've not seen any specific objections in this thread to that being
>> >>>> released
>> >>>> - other than relations being "about two weeks away". That as about
>> two
>> >>>> weeks ago. It appears to be in a stable state judging by our latest
>> >>>> nightly
>> >>>> build[1].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Our last release has now been over a month ago (a bug fix), while out
>> >>>> last
>> >>>> 0.x release was packaged up over two months ago. Any improvements
>> that
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> gone into trunk since are not available to those downloading
>> Bloodhound
>> >>>> every day[2].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I believe we should package up a release in the next few days, then
>> move
>> >>>> on
>> >>>> to working towards 0.7. Are there any volunteers for release manager?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> Joe
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] https://bh-demo1.apache.org/products/%40/ticket/156
>> >>>> [2] http://goo.gl/#analytics/goo.gl/D4hf5/month
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm happy to do this release if others are busy working on the final
>> >>> features.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I'm thinking of starting to prepare the release on Saturday since I
>> have a
>> >> solid 2 days free before then to do testing, and about a dozen minor
>> things
>> >> I'd like to fix before the release. Please let me know if you see any
>> >> issues with this plan.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> - Ryan
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > You will no doubt have noticed that I still have not started the release
>> > process. I believe there are still too many important issues that need
>> to
>> > be resolved, and through last week the number of issues was increasing
>> > rather than decreasing as we got feedback from users on IRC and the
>> mailing
>> > list.
>> >
>> > The 14 open tickets in Milestone Release 6 represents the issues that I
>> > think should be resolved. There are a few that could be rolled forward:
>> > #501, #461, #444, #201; but I've left those in the milestone because
>> they
>> > are close to being resolved. At least two of those 14 tickets have
>> patches
>> > from Olemis that just need to be reviewed and applied, and several other
>> > tickets just need minor follow-up.
>> >
>> > There are two important issues, #554 and #548, that I'm giving priority
>> to
>> > at the moment, and I also have a bloodhound.db file from avp that came
>> out
>> > of a discussion on IRC. He had a fairly complex series of problems that
>> > started with the "qct not defined" error that was resolved in #544, but
>> > even after that issue is resolved he still cannot create tickets. I will
>> > open a ticket for that after I have some time to sort out the discussion
>> > that took place on the mailing list and can describe the issue in
>> detail.
>> >
>> > It would be nice to get the release out as soon as possible, but I feel
>> it
>> > is more important to resolve these issues, otherwise we will cause our
>> > users problems and end up devoting more of our time supporting users
>> that
>> > experience those problems.
>> >
>> > - Ryan
>>
>> I see that most of the tickets for Milestone Release 6 are assigned to
>> you.
>> Would it help if others try to tackle at least some of them?
>>
>
> Yes, definitely. #548 and #554 would probably be solved much quicker by
> anyone that is more familiar with the MultiProduct architecture. Thanks!
>
#568 and #569 are both potential blockers for the release. Please take a
look and let me know if you consider them to be blockers.
https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/568
https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/569
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si> wrote:
>
> On 17. Jun, 2013, at 11:25, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Ryan Ollos <ryan.ollos@wandisco.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
> >>> joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Regarding the 0.6 release:
> >>>>
> >>>> I've not seen any specific objections in this thread to that being
> >>>> released
> >>>> - other than relations being "about two weeks away". That as about two
> >>>> weeks ago. It appears to be in a stable state judging by our latest
> >>>> nightly
> >>>> build[1].
> >>>>
> >>>> Our last release has now been over a month ago (a bug fix), while out
> >>>> last
> >>>> 0.x release was packaged up over two months ago. Any improvements that
> >>>> have
> >>>> gone into trunk since are not available to those downloading
> Bloodhound
> >>>> every day[2].
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe we should package up a release in the next few days, then
> move
> >>>> on
> >>>> to working towards 0.7. Are there any volunteers for release manager?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://bh-demo1.apache.org/products/%40/ticket/156
> >>>> [2] http://goo.gl/#analytics/goo.gl/D4hf5/month
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy to do this release if others are busy working on the final
> >>> features.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm thinking of starting to prepare the release on Saturday since I
> have a
> >> solid 2 days free before then to do testing, and about a dozen minor
> things
> >> I'd like to fix before the release. Please let me know if you see any
> >> issues with this plan.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Ryan
> >>
> >
> >
> > You will no doubt have noticed that I still have not started the release
> > process. I believe there are still too many important issues that need to
> > be resolved, and through last week the number of issues was increasing
> > rather than decreasing as we got feedback from users on IRC and the
> mailing
> > list.
> >
> > The 14 open tickets in Milestone Release 6 represents the issues that I
> > think should be resolved. There are a few that could be rolled forward:
> > #501, #461, #444, #201; but I've left those in the milestone because they
> > are close to being resolved. At least two of those 14 tickets have
> patches
> > from Olemis that just need to be reviewed and applied, and several other
> > tickets just need minor follow-up.
> >
> > There are two important issues, #554 and #548, that I'm giving priority
> to
> > at the moment, and I also have a bloodhound.db file from avp that came
> out
> > of a discussion on IRC. He had a fairly complex series of problems that
> > started with the "qct not defined" error that was resolved in #544, but
> > even after that issue is resolved he still cannot create tickets. I will
> > open a ticket for that after I have some time to sort out the discussion
> > that took place on the mailing list and can describe the issue in detail.
> >
> > It would be nice to get the release out as soon as possible, but I feel
> it
> > is more important to resolve these issues, otherwise we will cause our
> > users problems and end up devoting more of our time supporting users that
> > experience those problems.
> >
> > - Ryan
>
> I see that most of the tickets for Milestone Release 6 are assigned to you.
> Would it help if others try to tackle at least some of them?
>
Yes, definitely. #548 and #554 would probably be solved much quicker by
anyone that is more familiar with the MultiProduct architecture. Thanks!
Re: 0.6 and 1.0 releases
Posted by Matevž Bradač <ma...@digiverse.si>.
On 17. Jun, 2013, at 11:25, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
>>> joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding the 0.6 release:
>>>>
>>>> I've not seen any specific objections in this thread to that being
>>>> released
>>>> - other than relations being "about two weeks away". That as about two
>>>> weeks ago. It appears to be in a stable state judging by our latest
>>>> nightly
>>>> build[1].
>>>>
>>>> Our last release has now been over a month ago (a bug fix), while out
>>>> last
>>>> 0.x release was packaged up over two months ago. Any improvements that
>>>> have
>>>> gone into trunk since are not available to those downloading Bloodhound
>>>> every day[2].
>>>>
>>>> I believe we should package up a release in the next few days, then move
>>>> on
>>>> to working towards 0.7. Are there any volunteers for release manager?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://bh-demo1.apache.org/products/%40/ticket/156
>>>> [2] http://goo.gl/#analytics/goo.gl/D4hf5/month
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm happy to do this release if others are busy working on the final
>>> features.
>>>
>>
>> I'm thinking of starting to prepare the release on Saturday since I have a
>> solid 2 days free before then to do testing, and about a dozen minor things
>> I'd like to fix before the release. Please let me know if you see any
>> issues with this plan.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Ryan
>>
>
>
> You will no doubt have noticed that I still have not started the release
> process. I believe there are still too many important issues that need to
> be resolved, and through last week the number of issues was increasing
> rather than decreasing as we got feedback from users on IRC and the mailing
> list.
>
> The 14 open tickets in Milestone Release 6 represents the issues that I
> think should be resolved. There are a few that could be rolled forward:
> #501, #461, #444, #201; but I've left those in the milestone because they
> are close to being resolved. At least two of those 14 tickets have patches
> from Olemis that just need to be reviewed and applied, and several other
> tickets just need minor follow-up.
>
> There are two important issues, #554 and #548, that I'm giving priority to
> at the moment, and I also have a bloodhound.db file from avp that came out
> of a discussion on IRC. He had a fairly complex series of problems that
> started with the "qct not defined" error that was resolved in #544, but
> even after that issue is resolved he still cannot create tickets. I will
> open a ticket for that after I have some time to sort out the discussion
> that took place on the mailing list and can describe the issue in detail.
>
> It would be nice to get the release out as soon as possible, but I feel it
> is more important to resolve these issues, otherwise we will cause our
> users problems and end up devoting more of our time supporting users that
> experience those problems.
>
> - Ryan
I see that most of the tickets for Milestone Release 6 are assigned to you.
Would it help if others try to tackle at least some of them?
--
matevz