Definitely makes sense to have some soak time, as it appears we just reached “code complete” this morning.
I would love to see the automated tests in the release pipeline run at least once a day for a couple weeks to help surface any new issues from the recent flurry of changes. If no one objects, I will go ahead and add a “daily” trigger to that pipeline. -Owen > On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > 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 >>> >>> >>
