ETA for 0.19?

Hi folks,

I'm wondering if we can come up with an ETA for an 0.19 release.  I'm
releasing Mailman 3.0a8 tonight and I have a developer who is working on a
PostgreSQL backend.  He's having some problems with UUID support in 0.18 and
noticed that Jamu's branch to fix this landed post-0.18.

If there's any way I can help to get 0.19 out, please let me know.

Cheers,
-Barry

Hi folks,

I'm wondering if we can come up with an ETA for an 0.19 release.  I'm
releasing Mailman 3.0a8 tonight and I have a developer who is working on a
PostgreSQL backend.  He's having some problems with UUID support in 0.18 and
noticed that Jamu's branch to fix this landed post-0.18.

If there's any way I can help to get 0.19 out, please let me know.

Cheers,
-Barry

Re: ETA for 0.19?

Hi Barry,

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry <at> canonical.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if we can come up with an ETA for an 0.19 release.  I'm
> releasing Mailman 3.0a8 tonight and I have a developer who is working on a
> PostgreSQL backend.  He's having some problems with UUID support in 0.18 and
> noticed that Jamu's branch to fix this landed post-0.18.
>
> If there's any way I can help to get 0.19 out, please let me know.

You should make a release!  The instructions are here:

  https://storm.canonical.com/ReleaseProcedure

Gary updated them when he made the 0.18 release, so they should be
up-to-date.  I've added you to the Storm team on Launchpad, so that
you can do everything you need to.  I'm in Africa, about to climb
Mt. Kilimanjaro, otherwise I'd offer to help more than telling you to
RTFM. :)

Take care,
J.

--

-- 
storm mailing list
storm <at> lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm

Re: ETA for 0.19?

On Sep 24, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Jamu Kakar wrote:

>You should make a release!  The instructions are here:
>
>  https://storm.canonical.com/ReleaseProcedure
>
>Gary updated them when he made the 0.18 release, so they should be
>up-to-date.  I've added you to the Storm team on Launchpad, so that
>you can do everything you need to.  I'm in Africa, about to climb
>Mt. Kilimanjaro, otherwise I'd offer to help more than telling you to
>RTFM. :)

Um wow, *amazing*!  Definitely let us see the pictures. :)

I'm happy to do it, and will read the docs.  Can someone with permission on
PyPI give me permissions to upload there too?

Cheers,
-Barry

On Sep 24, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Jamu Kakar wrote:

>You should make a release!  The instructions are here:
>
>  https://storm.canonical.com/ReleaseProcedure
>
>Gary updated them when he made the 0.18 release, so they should be
>up-to-date.  I've added you to the Storm team on Launchpad, so that
>you can do everything you need to.  I'm in Africa, about to climb

Re: ETA for 0.19?

Okay, this one is fun.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/859222

I cannot create the 0.20 milestone in order to retarget non-committed changes
to the next release.

I suppose the thing to do is to create the 0.2 milestone (see the bug!) and
then rename it when the Launchpad devs fix this bug.

-Barry

On Sep 24, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Jamu Kakar wrote:

>Hi Barry,
>
>On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@...> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if we can come up with an ETA for an 0.19 release.  I'm
>> releasing Mailman 3.0a8 tonight and I have a developer who is working on a
>> PostgreSQL backend.  He's having some problems with UUID support in 0.18 and
>> noticed that Jamu's branch to fix this landed post-0.18.
>>
>> If there's any way I can help to get 0.19 out, please let me know.
>
>You should make a release!  The instructions are here:
>
>  https://storm.canonical.com/ReleaseProcedure
>
>Gary updated them when he made the 0.18 release, so they should be
>up-to-date.  I've added you to the Storm team on Launchpad, so that

Re: ETA for 0.19?

On Sep 25, 2011, at 05:26 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

>Okay, this one is fun.
>
>https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/859222
>
>I cannot create the 0.20 milestone in order to retarget non-committed changes
>to the next release.
>
>I suppose the thing to do is to create the 0.2 milestone (see the bug!) and
>then rename it when the Launchpad devs fix this bug.

Never mind, I found a workaround.  See the bug for details.
-Barry

On Sep 25, 2011, at 05:26 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

>Okay, this one is fun.
>
>https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/859222
>
>I cannot create the 0.20 milestone in order to retarget non-committed changes
>to the next release.
>
>I suppose the thing to do is to create the 0.2 milestone (see the bug!) and
>then rename it when the Launchpad devs fix this bug.

Never mind, I found a workaround.  See the bug for details.
-Barry

Re: ETA for 0.19?

Note that I've moved all the non-Fix Committed bugs milestoned to 0.19 to
0.20, except the following.  673666 is marked as high/confirmed and is
assigned to Thomas.  The others are In Progress, with 617182 assigned to Jamu,
and the others assigned to James.  I doubt Jamu will do much on that bug until
he's done climbing mountains. :)

Could Thomas and James please comment on these and/or reassign them to 0.20?
Once that's done, I'll try again to do an 0.19 release.

#673666	KeyError with store._order[pair]
#854787	Storm Django layer does not correctly capture disconnection errors
        when using PostgreSQL backend 
#181905	IndirectReferenceSet.find().something() produces non-working queries
#322972	It should be possible to create queries with 'FROM table1 USING
        table2' syntax 
#617182	A context manager to block database access would be useful

Cheers,
-Barry

Note that I've moved all the non-Fix Committed bugs milestoned to 0.19 to
0.20, except the following.  673666 is marked as high/confirmed and is
assigned to Thomas.  The others are In Progress, with 617182 assigned to Jamu,
and the others assigned to James.  I doubt Jamu will do much on that bug until
he's done climbing mountains. :)

Could Thomas and James please comment on these and/or reassign them to 0.20?
Once that's done, I'll try again to do an 0.19 release.

Re: ETA for 0.19?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@...> wrote:
> #854787 Storm Django layer does not correctly capture disconnection errors
>        when using PostgreSQL backend

If possible, I'd like to get this one merged for the 0.19 release.
The patch is ready for review, and fixes a pretty serious problem in
the disconnection handling for projects using the storm.django module.

James.

--

-- 
storm mailing list
storm@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm

Re: ETA for 0.19?

On Sep 29, 2011, at 02:12 PM, James Henstridge wrote:

>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@...> wrote:
>> #854787 Storm Django layer does not correctly capture disconnection errors
>>        when using PostgreSQL backend
>
>If possible, I'd like to get this one merged for the 0.19 release.
>The patch is ready for review, and fixes a pretty serious problem in
>the disconnection handling for projects using the storm.django module.

No problem.  I'm waiting on pypi access anyway.  Can you re-target that bug to
0.19 and set a critical status on it?  That way I won't forget. :)

Cheers,
-Barry

On Sep 29, 2011, at 02:12 PM, James Henstridge wrote:

>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@...> wrote:
>> #854787 Storm Django layer does not correctly capture disconnection errors
>>        when using PostgreSQL backend
>
>If possible, I'd like to get this one merged for the 0.19 release.
>The patch is ready for review, and fixes a pretty serious problem in
>the disconnection handling for projects using the storm.django module.

No problem.  I'm waiting on pypi access anyway.  Can you re-target that bug to
0.19 and set a critical status on it?  That way I won't forget. :)

Re: ETA for 0.19?

Le 25/09/2011 23:55, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> Note that I've moved all the non-Fix Committed bugs milestoned to 0.19 to
> 0.20, except the following.  673666 is marked as high/confirmed and is
> assigned to Thomas.  The others are In Progress, with 617182 assigned to Jamu,
> and the others assigned to James.  I doubt Jamu will do much on that bug until
> he's done climbing mountains. :)
> 
> Could Thomas and James please comment on these and/or reassign them to 0.20?
> Once that's done, I'll try again to do an 0.19 release.
> 
> #673666	KeyError with store._order[pair]
> #854787	Storm Django layer does not correctly capture disconnection errors
>         when using PostgreSQL backend 
> #181905	IndirectReferenceSet.find().something() produces non-working queries
> #322972	It should be possible to create queries with 'FROM table1 USING
>         table2' syntax 
> #617182	A context manager to block database access would be useful

Hi,

Thanks for working on this Barry!

I moved all the mentioned bug, except the one in progress from James
which seems might be fixed soon. I also added you on pypi.

Let me know if I can do anything to help.

--

-- 
Thomas <resending as it was lost somehow>

Re: ETA for 0.19?

On Sep 29, 2011, at 05:21 PM, Thomas Hervé wrote:

>I moved all the mentioned bug, except the one in progress from James
>which seems might be fixed soon. I also added you on pypi.

Fantastic, thanks!  Okay, I'll release 0.19 once James commits the fix for
854787.  It looks like the mp has been approved, so I think I can work on a
release early next week.

-Barry

--

-- 
storm mailing list
storm <at> lists.canonical.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm