To Alexander's point, I'm use the latest geode snapshot and am seeing an issue that looks similar to (if not the same as) GEODE-3780 (but this one is closed). I'd like to explore this a bit more and decide if that should be reopened but I am not sure if it's not an issue important enough to wait for.
I think some soak time would be nice but I can understand that it's not a clear criteria. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:57 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > I started working on LICENSE issues. > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:55 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > I’ll point out that the license issue I mentioned earlier this week isn’t > > resolved. And that we’re bundling potentially incompatible Jackson jars. > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Alexander Murmann <ajmurm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Clear quality metrics is definitely great. However, we've also seen in > > the > > > past that we sometimes find new issues by continue work on the code and > > > some folks starting to use them on their own projects. For that > reason, I > > > think it might be wise to give ourselves some extra time to run into > > issues > > > organically. Maybe we don't need that as our coverage improves. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > >> The release criteria of “based on meeting quality goals” sounds great. > > >> > > >> What are those quality goals exactly, and can we objectively measure > > >> progress against them? > > >> > > >> It looks like we already have a number of well-defined quality goals > in > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+process < > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+process> > > >> Presuming this is up-to-date, we need to satisfy 8 required quality > > goals > > >> before we can release. > > >> > > >> Thus far, we have not met the goal "Build is successful including > > >> automated tests”. > > >> To meet it, is one “all green" run in the release pipeline < > > >> > > > https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-release-1-9-0-main?groups=complete > > > > > >> sufficient? Or should we require 2 or 3 “all green” runs on the same > > SHA? > > >> > > >> Do Windows tests count toward “all green”? Currently they are not in > > the > > >> default view (same as 1.8.0). > > >> > > >> The Geode release process document above also lists an additional 11 > > >> quality goals as “optional.” I assume these are meant as suggestions > > the > > >> community may wish to consider when voting on a release? > > >> > > >> If anyone feels the existing release process documentation does not > > >> adequately define what quality goals must be met in order to release, > > let’s > > >> discuss (and get those docs updated!) > > >> > > >> -Owen > > >> > > >>> On Mar 1, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> IMHO we start release work based on a quarterly schedule and we > finish > > >> it based on meeting quality goals. So right now I’m less worried > about > > >> when the release will be done (because uncertainty) and more focused > on > > >> ensuring we have demonstrated stability on the release branch. > > Hopefully > > >> that will happen sooner than 4/1…but it could take longer too. > > >>> > > >>> Anthony > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org > > > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>> > > >>>> According to our wiki we were aiming for a March 1st release date > for > > >> our > > >>>> 1.9 release. We cut the release branch about two weeks late and see > > >> unusual > > >>>> amounts of merges still going into the branch. I propose that we > give > > >>>> ourselves some more time to validate what's there. My proposal is to > > aim > > >>>> for last week of March or maybe even week of April 1st. > > >>>> > > >>>> What do you all think? > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > Alexander J. Murmann > > > (650) 283-1933 > > > > >
