Andreas Jung wrote:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/collector_contents?searching=yep&Sear chableText=&status%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=Accepted&status%3Alist%3Aignore_ empty=Pending&classifications%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=bug&importances%3Alis t%3Aignore_empty=critical
Ups, I got your point. I thought you were talking about 9 critical error *directly* related to Zope 2.9 e.g. the packaging issue, Five etc..I am aware of this issues. Issue marked by the issuer as critical might appear critical to them..so one needs to decide which issues are blockers.
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs. BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg@nuxeo.com
--On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume <fg@nuxeo.com> wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful. There is no way to enforce contributors to fix bugs. Speaking for myself I look at bugs from time to time and see what I can fix. There are bunch of bugs where you don't know if it is a bug or a feature...it's basically a question of having time... -aj
What about making the banch but calling it an alpha release? I suspect many more people would have a chance to kick the tires if they could download binaries. You may find some of the "critical" bugs actually only occur in very specific circumstances, or that there are other, even more critical bugs hiding. I think most people are mature enough to understand what an alpha release is, and treat it as such. Just a thought, --Craeg Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume <fg@nuxeo.com> wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful. There is no way to enforce contributors to fix bugs. Speaking for myself I look at bugs from time to time and see what I can fix. There are bunch of bugs where you don't know if it is a bug or a feature...it's basically a question of having time...
-aj
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev] Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful.
Then let's try again :)
There is no way to enforce contributors to fix bugs. Speaking for myself I look at bugs from time to time and see what I can fix. There are bunch of bugs where you don't know if it is a bug or a feature...it's basically a question of having time...
But having specific days set aside is still a good incentive. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg@nuxeo.com
--On 14. November 2005 02:42:31 +0100 Florent Guillaume <fg@nuxeo.com> wrote:
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev]
Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but there must be enough people to fix bugs...the last bugs days we had were not sooo successful.
Then let's try again :)
You're going to organize them? :-) -aj
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my email about Tres' bugfix, for example). By the way, in the future, just to avoid confusion, I think release branches should be made by the release manager (in thise case Andreas Jung). They clearly fall under their responsibility and supervision. I still think it was a good thing to create the branch now because I agree with Tres' general argument that a feature freeze on the trunk hinders on-going development. The trunk should never be in any freeze state. That's what release branches are for. Thus, the Zope 2.9 and 3.2 branches should have been made November 1st. Philipp
--On 15. November 2005 00:20:00 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp@weitershausen.de> wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
By the way, in the future, just to avoid confusion, I think release branches should be made by the release manager (in thise case Andreas Jung). They clearly fall under their responsibility and supervision.
Jup. So when I see clear the only problem is the zpkg issue (where Philikon is working on it)...right? -aj
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 15. November 2005 00:20:00 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp@weitershausen.de> wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
By the way, in the future, just to avoid confusion, I think release branches should be made by the release manager (in thise case Andreas Jung). They clearly fall under their responsibility and supervision.
Jup. So when I see clear the only problem is the zpkg issue (where Philikon is working on it)...right?
Jup. Making progress in babysteps. Philipp
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
This is Andreas' call. Jim
--On 14. November 2005 14:25:17 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
This is Andreas' call.
Philipp is still working on the zpkg issue and he will require some more days. As soon as this issue is resolved will cut the 2.9 branch and head for the 2.9 b1 release. Andreas
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 19:47 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 14. November 2005 14:25:17 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
This is Andreas' call.
Philipp is still working on the zpkg issue and he will require some more days. As soon as this issue is resolved will cut the 2.9 branch and head for the 2.9 b1 release.
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that the trunk remains frozen? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed. So in this case Philipp needs to commit his fixes to the existing 2.9 branch and the HEAD and the HEAD would be open for new code. Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed. So in this case Philipp needs to commit his fixes to the existing 2.9 branch and the HEAD and the HEAD would be open for new code.
I think he actually voted *for* removing it, but I read it as saying he was removing it, too. In any case, the 2.9 branch has had several backported fixes since it was created. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDe5R2+gerLs4ltQ4RAuvlAKDF5oAC7NgwXKm5dgJqtg+qJe5JCgCdFMfG z9ZLP8haROC1/JhATzatlJU= =SkAj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed. So in this case Philipp needs to commit his fixes to the existing 2.9 branch and the HEAD and the HEAD would be open for new code.
Yes, I comitted all the changes to both the trunk and the Zope 2.9 branch. They should be identical. So at this point I don't care whether we get rid of it again and recreate it at a later point or simply leave it. Again, Andreas' call. Note that most of the work I still need to do is happening in the zpkg code, so the Zope code is basically ready for a release. The only things I have on my todo list for Zope 2 are: - stitch in more things from Zope 3 so that ALL unit tests pass (this will effectively mean stitching in twisted, maybe even more). - make some CHANGES.txt entries ;) Philipp
--On 17. November 2005 07:45:48 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp@weitershausen.de> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed. So in this case Philipp needs to commit his fixes to the existing 2.9 branch and the HEAD and the HEAD would be open for new code.
Yes, I comitted all the changes to both the trunk and the Zope 2.9 branch. They should be identical. So at this point I don't care whether we get rid of it again and recreate it at a later point or simply leave it. Again, Andreas' call.
Delete the 2.9 branch at this time just for the sake of deleting it would be stupid. I hope that Philipp will finish his work soon so this this issue is not so important. That means: 2.9 branch: feature frozen, open for fixes of course HEAD: open for whatever... I hope the things are clear now :-) Andreas
--On 17. November 2005 15:36:23 +0100 Andreas Jung <lists@andreas-jung.com> wrote:
Delete the 2.9 branch at this time just for the sake of deleting it would be stupid. I hope that Philipp will finish his work soon so this this issue is not so important. That means:
2.9 branch: feature frozen, open for fixes of course HEAD: open for whatever...
I hope the things are clear now :-)
I also agreed with Stephan to defer the 2.9 b1 release until 3.2 is ready for a beta release. This means that the goal will remain to release 2.9 and 3.2 together. Although there are no more pending critical bugs in the Zope collector *grins* we should organize a Z2 bug day soon. Any volunteers to organize one? Andreas
participants (6)
-
Andreas Jung -
Craeg Strong -
Florent Guillaume -
Jim Fulton -
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Tres Seaver