[cle-release-team] 2.9.0 decision - Re: 2.9.0 key issues [short] list

[Neal Caidin]

Resending this, just because if you only get the digest form, it would be easy to miss this discussion with the subject line the same. All I did was update the Subject line on the email.

-- Neal

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
>