[cle-release-team] 2.9.0 key issues [short] list

[Neal Caidin]

The Oracle scripts do sound like a potential blocker as well, or if we go forward with the release this week ,  clear release notes.

I am starting to feel torn about the 2.9.0 release.  On the one hand, if we can get 2.9.0 released this week (or early next) , then we can make that announcement at Educause, but perhaps more importantly it will enable us to start thinking about what comes next, for 2.9.1 , which will be essential, and then for 2.10. To me, freeing up that energy to focus on the future is one of the main drivers for getting 2.9.0 released. 

On the other hand, maybe it is worth cleaning these things up before the release, which would mean a delay in schedule. If we cannot announce at Educause, that is a loss, but not the end of the world. I'm more concerned about keeping things moving forward with CLE. Which will keep things moving forward with the CLE more effectively:  moving forward with the release and immediately planning a 2.9.1 with all these things fixed, plus more? or delaying the release, and having a cleaner 2.9.0 but pushing out the work to have a 2.9.1 ?  If we go for an RC04 (which will be necessary because there is no way to get this all in RC03 at this point), we will likely be delayed till December. 

My gut feeling is that we should push on for 2.9.0, get it out the door and start planning 2.9.1, but I'm open to the alternative.


-- Neal



On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Seth Theriault <slt at columbia.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Neal Caidin
> <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody disagree with the proposal to move forward with the 2.9.0 release?  I would like to hear
>> concerns in advance of Thursday's call, if at all possible, especially given our tight timeline.
>> 
>> FYI, I'll highlight these as the top 3 known issues in the release documentation.
> 
> Another very large problem are the Oracle timezone-related changes in
> KNL-725, KNL-734, and KNL-735; see a previous sakai-dev discussion.
> Now, these are in 2.8 and later 2.7s --so they are not new and not a
> blocker -- but we need to do something about them. Matt Jones and I
> have been discussing them, but we are not sure how to proceed other
> than some possible documentation.
> 
> If you haven't made the Oracle SQL changes, you should probably NOT
> make them to maintain current behavior.
> 
> Seth