Cutting a release for Surefire?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Cutting a release for Surefire?

Enrico Olivelli
What about cutting a release for Surefire plugin?
We already fixed important problems that are on 3.0.0-M5 and I saw that
current master branch works well.

Thoughts?
Volunteers?

Enrico
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cutting a release for Surefire?

Romain Manni-Bucau
+1 to release, last milestones have blockers master fixes

Le sam. 3 avr. 2021 à 13:59, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Tibor
>
> Il Sab 3 Apr 2021, 12:32 Tibor Digana <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > It is only a milestone version which means a work in progress. The fixes
> > made so far are really minor, no need to make any release.
> >
>
> Got it thanks.
>
> Latest release 3.0.0-M5 has some weird behaviour that makes it impossible
> to upgrade from 3.0.0-M4 but I saw that current master works well.
>
> I am sorry I don't have time to contribute code patches to surefire during
> this period (no need to explain) but I am actively following the project
> and I see that all of the patches that went in since 3.0.0-M5 only enhance
> surefire and did not introduce instability.
>
> I can help with bureaucratic stuff and I can take care of ensuring that
> what we release to the public is in good shape with responsibility.
>
> That said, upgrading to 3.0.0M5 is not important to me.
>
> I can wait.
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion
>
> Cheers
> Enrico
>
>
> If you take a look at the road map, you will see that I do not need to fix
> > tiny issues, I need to rework the additional attributes which will
> transfer
> > events about tests. There are testId and RunOrder. Without them the
> BIGGER
> > fixes, than the ones you are aiming for, would not be possible, e.g.
> better
> > xml marshaller, logs from parallel tests and re-run which is currently
> > unstable due to it relies on the order of test run. The next thing which
> > seems to be easier and also necessary is the execution of UUID and Script
> > which is needed by Cucumber and junit5.
> > The sad thing is that mostly common users participate and they become
> > committers. Our official committers do not. So Enrico, pls participate in
> > coding because many of us like performing releases but there are only few
> > hard workers. Making a release is easy but taking the responsibility for
> > the binaries in the world is much harder. So, pls participate in
> > Stackoverflow like Karl does and me, participate in coding and then we
> can
> > talk about taking a benefit from a release.
> >
> > Yeah, one more very important thing. We introduced TCP connector for
> making
> > the above plan possible. The user found that the TCP feature hangs
> somehow,
> > see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1881. It took me
> > several
> > months to understand the rootcase. It has nothing to do with TCP itself,
> > nothing but process pipes which are full of bytes before the tcp makes
> > handshaking. Releasing the work in the middle and unstable is silly. You
> > know when I found the root cause? It was at 1:30 early in the morning.
> > Again pls come to work and spend less time in discussions, let;s work in
> > PRs on GitHub and we will have a chance to make releases earlier.
> > I am sorry that I am a bad guy, but I asked Enrico several times to work
> in
> > this OSS as well. I know Enrico that you participate in another OSSes too
> > but you have to decide, since the day has only 24 hours, how much you
> will
> > do and what you will do, but sorry making a release without working on it
> > is not adequate.
> >
> > T
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 11:08 AM Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What about cutting a release for Surefire plugin?
> > > We already fixed important problems that are on 3.0.0-M5 and I saw that
> > > current master branch works well.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Volunteers?
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>