You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2012/12/05 00:23:32 UTC
Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Hi,
Does anyone know of any changes that have been checked into develop (since we made the parity release) that we don't want to release?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
There are 388 odd resolved issues in JIRA - obviously not all of these (IMO) are need to be in the release notes.
Here a rough query that will get them (may miss a couple)
project = Flex and status = resolved and updatedDate > '2011/1/1'
Someone what to take a look and see which one are worthy of being mentioned in the release notes?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> It appears to be empty, but was it ever decided that this "experimental" project should be left in here:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects/experimental/
I believe that is a place holder package for experimental components to add to the SDK. IMO adding a README to this directory would be OK to them include it in the release.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Dasa Paddock <dp...@esri.com>.
It appears to be empty, but was it ever decided that this "experimental" project should be left in here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects/experimental/
--Dasa
On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know of any changes that have been checked into develop (since we made the parity release) that we don't want to release?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi Nick,
> They were minor, and don't effect the display, nor really the operation of
> the component. They simply prevent the lifecycle from being run multiple
> times. I think all of four lines were changed in the commit.
Thanks for that info.
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
I'm the one who committed the changes to the code.
They were minor, and don't effect the display, nor really the operation of
the component. They simply prevent the lifecycle from being run multiple
times. I think all of four lines were changed in the commit.
I've personally been using them in my production code for the last three
weeks (and I built a quick mustella test around them, but that didn't get
committed, because it really isn't comprehensive enough).
-Nick
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Omar Gonzalez <om...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I am sorry, but it does not make sense to release something that has
> not
> > been tested.
> > Again I agree but we have to live with what we have. I'm sure that the
> the
> > tests we currently have do not provide 100% coverage.
> >
> > > It is an entirely different issue to not test it at all.
> > As I said we did exactly that with the previous release (for charts).
> >
> > Justin
>
>
> The previous release was a parity release, no code changes in charts
> therefore tests weren't important.
>
> This time around, what Om is saying, there are changes and we have tests.
> It would be dumb not to use them.
>
> -omar
>
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Omar Gonzalez <om...@gmail.com>.
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I am sorry, but it does not make sense to release something that has not
> been tested.
> Again I agree but we have to live with what we have. I'm sure that the the
> tests we currently have do not provide 100% coverage.
>
> > It is an entirely different issue to not test it at all.
> As I said we did exactly that with the previous release (for charts).
>
> Justin
The previous release was a parity release, no code changes in charts
therefore tests weren't important.
This time around, what Om is saying, there are changes and we have tests.
It would be dumb not to use them.
-omar
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I am sorry, but it does not make sense to release something that has not been tested.
Again I agree but we have to live with what we have. I'm sure that the the tests we currently have do not provide 100% coverage.
> It is an entirely different issue to not test it at all.
As I said we did exactly that with the previous release (for charts).
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 5, 2012 12:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Ideally, we would want to test them before we release them.
> Agreed, but they had no tests before and we still released them.
>
According to Alex, they had tests but was somehow not donated.
And I am not aware of any changes made to those components in the 4.8
parity release. So it didn't really matter whether we had those tests
earlier or not.
> > Alex is working on getting the Mustella tests for charts donated. I
> > suggest we wait until they are committed before we ship this change.
> If we wait until everything is perfect we'll never make a release. I'll
see what involved in reverting the changes - issue being that down the
track we might have a merge issue and the changes are lost.
>
I am sorry, but it does not make sense to release something that has not
been tested. It is one thing to run tests and find some minor bugs. It
is an entirely different issue to not test it at all. Especially a set of
components as important as Charts.
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Ideally, we would want to test them before we release them.
Agreed, but they had no tests before and we still released them.
> Alex is working on getting the Mustella tests for charts donated. I
> suggest we wait until they are committed before we ship this change.
If we wait until everything is perfect we'll never make a release. I'll see what involved in reverting the changes - issue being that down the track we might have a merge issue and the changes are lost.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
We found some tests. They should be arriving in SVN shortly.
On 12/4/12 5:19 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
>
>> HI,
>>
>>> The reason is that we dont have any Mustella tests for Charts and this
>> code
>>> change could potentially affect how charts render.
>> If we didn't have any tests (ie they might already render differently)
>> before is it an issue?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>
>
> I am not sure I understand your question. Whenever a component changes
> from State A to State B, we want to run their corresponding tests to check
> if something fails. Here we have a bunch of components whose test cases
> were not donated. Ideally, we would want to test them before we release
> them.
>
> Alex is working on getting the Mustella tests for charts donated. I
> suggest we wait until they are committed before we ship this change.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> HI,
>
> > The reason is that we dont have any Mustella tests for Charts and this
> code
> > change could potentially affect how charts render.
> If we didn't have any tests (ie they might already render differently)
> before is it an issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
I am not sure I understand your question. Whenever a component changes
from State A to State B, we want to run their corresponding tests to check
if something fails. Here we have a bunch of components whose test cases
were not donated. Ideally, we would want to test them before we release
them.
Alex is working on getting the Mustella tests for charts donated. I
suggest we wait until they are committed before we ship this change.
Thanks,
Om
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> The reason is that we dont have any Mustella tests for Charts and this code
> change could potentially affect how charts render.
If we didn't have any tests (ie they might already render differently) before is it an issue?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
We might want to pull this revision out:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1408058
The reason is that we dont have any Mustella tests for Charts and this code
change could potentially affect how charts render.
The two issues are tracked here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33216 (Chart performance)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33277 (There are no Mustella
tests for Charts)
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ok as the first step I created a release branch:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/sdk/branches/release4.9
>
> This was a copy of head from:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Ok as the first step I created a release branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/sdk/branches/release4.9
This was a copy of head from:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Omar Gonzalez <om...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'm not sure how this model relates since we aren't using git yet.
> The vote was to use the gitflow model now with git, as git is not fully
> supported yet that falls back to use gitflow branching model with SVN.
>
> See note 2 from the original vote:
> http://markmail.org/message/2kklqltsdo4643lv
>
> I's read that as Apache hasn't approved the use of Git yet for Flex so it
> applies.
>
> > I thought we agreed that for now we were doing development in develop,
> would
> > merge changes that would be released to trunk
> Again my understanding is that wouldn't fit in with the gitflow model.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Just to add a little more insight into the nvie model, which I use on all
our projects at work, making a release branch is desired because it is
assumed that master (trunk in SVN) is under the watch of a CI system such
as Jenkins. Thus, committing changes to master(trunk) is the equivalent of
producing a release. Basically, we should be aiming to have it such that
whenever a commit happens to master(trunk) then it should trigger Jenkins
running all of the scripts necessary to produce a release.
A release branch allows you to branch off of the develop branch in order to
accomplish the necessary work that is required to prepare the repository to
be in a state to be released. This would cover things like the inquiries
Justin has been making regarding which files need version numbers updated,
merging in any additional feature branches if needed and making sure all
automated testing is passing, etc.
Once the release branch is ready to go, it is then merged to master(trunk);
which should trigger the scripts that produce a release, and upon success
there it is remerged back into develop to make sure the develop branch is
updated with any changes that were required to prepare the release.
-omar
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
So far, I think Justin is taking all of the right steps. We opted to use
the branching model in SVN until we get up on Git. So making a release
branch is the right move, and I think we will have the chart tests in time
to validate those changes so I don't think we need to filter anything out of
the release branch, which should make things easier.
On 12/5/12 10:57 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure how this model relates since we aren't using git yet.
> The vote was to use the gitflow model now with git, as git is not fully
> supported yet that falls back to use gitflow branching model with SVN.
>
> See note 2 from the original vote:
> http://markmail.org/message/2kklqltsdo4643lv
>
> I's read that as Apache hasn't approved the use of Git yet for Flex so it
> applies.
>
>> I thought we agreed that for now we were doing development in develop, would
>> merge changes that would be released to trunk
> Again my understanding is that wouldn't fit in with the gitflow model.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I'm not sure how this model relates since we aren't using git yet.
The vote was to use the gitflow model now with git, as git is not fully supported yet that falls back to use gitflow branching model with SVN.
See note 2 from the original vote:
http://markmail.org/message/2kklqltsdo4643lv
I's read that as Apache hasn't approved the use of Git yet for Flex so it applies.
> I thought we agreed that for now we were doing development in develop, would
> merge changes that would be released to trunk
Again my understanding is that wouldn't fit in with the gitflow model.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 12/5/12 11 :43AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Justin - I thought develop would be merged to trunk and we'd release from
>> there yet I see you made another branch.
>
>My understanding of the gitflow model[1] is that you need to create a
>release branch and work in that, once it's all working then you merge
>into trunk. If you look at the diagram in [1] master can be thought of as
>trunk.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>[1] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
I'm not sure how this model relates since we aren't using git yet. I
thought we agreed that for now we were doing development in develop, would
merge changes that would be released to trunk, build the kit from there,
and then make a tag for the release. I don't see the need for another
branch - I could of course be missing something though.
Carol
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> What version of FP and AIR are you planning to use for the release?
Very good question. Does anyone have any stats on modern FP usage? While there's not any major reason I can see to up the FP version, I'm sure there would be interest in an updated AIR version.
> I will check in the chart tests before the end of the week. We got
> permission from the Adobe VP to do so.
OK thanks. If you could merge those into the release branch when you do so that would be appreciated.
> I am working on integrating the adobe.next changes into develop. I've
> submitted about 80-90% of the bug fixes already. Right now I'm working on
> the s:DataGrid changes and I have a few other random bug fixes I haven't
> submitted yet.
Might be useful if they also get merged into the release branch, but I guess we have the draw a line somewhere.
> Justin - I thought develop would be merged to trunk and we'd release from
> there yet I see you made another branch.
My understanding of the gitflow model[1] is that you need to create a release branch and work in that, once it's all working then you merge into trunk. If you look at the diagram in [1] master can be thought of as trunk.
Thanks,
Justin
[1] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Re: Working towards a 4.9 Release Candidate
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
What version of FP and AIR are you planning to use for the release?
I will check in the chart tests before the end of the week. We got
permission from the Adobe VP to do so.
I am working on integrating the adobe.next changes into develop. I've
submitted about 80-90% of the bug fixes already. Right now I'm working on
the s:DataGrid changes and I have a few other random bug fixes I haven't
submitted yet.
Justin - I thought develop would be merged to trunk and we'd release from
there yet I see you made another branch.
Carol
On 12/4/12 6 :23PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Does anyone know of any changes that have been checked into develop
>(since we made the parity release) that we don't want to release?
>
>Thanks,
>Justin