Forum OpenACS Development: 12 Dec 2003 Update

Collapse
4: 12 Dec 2003 Update (response to 3)
Posted by Joel Aufrecht on 12/12/03 11:07 AM
The following criteria are not yet met for releasing an RC (I have omitted trivial and administrative criteria):
  • all the core packages have upgrade scripts. I interpret this to mean that any site back to 4.5 can be upgraded to 5.0.0 via the APM. If there is an alternate inpretation, please post it as a TIP. We have not met this criterion; Daveb is currently working on it.
  • All Severity 1 and Severity 2 bugs fixed or postponed and Test team verifies no blocking bugs. Blocking bugs are those designated Priority 1. (This is not a good system. We'll fix it after we upgrade 5.0.) We have 4 remaining blocker bugs:
    • #1265. Security: Somebody managed to get a ; in a page title.
    • #1226. .LRN class members can create/edit/delete calendar items
    • #1144. Users duplicated in views registered_users and cc_users
    • #1172. Creating a guest user no longer works
  • Translation server data synchronized to branch. Collaboraid has committed code for an improved synchronization process and is testing this code; it still remains to upgrade the translation server so that it has this new code, and then to use it to synchronize the data on the translation server to the branch.
Collapse
5: Re: 12 Dec 2003 Update (response to 4)
Posted by Jeff Davis on 12/12/03 12:06 PM
On the upgrade criteria, it was discussed in the OCT meeting and the consensus was that it was not a blocker if the upgrade had a manual step but that it had to be well documented. Of course, if an automated update was done and robust that would be better...

(We did not have a formal vote so that is of course my interpretation, but you can look at the irc log).

Collapse
6: Re: 12 Dec 2003 Update (response to 4)
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on 12/12/03 12:56 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the TIP 35 has been approved (or should have been). Isn't this the two yes and no no. Gosh, I can't remember these TIP rules...

Anyway, I second Jeff in saying that the OCT has been in the meetings in favour of a manual upgrade from 4.6.3 to 5.0 to get the release and not treat the non existance of an automatic upgrade as a blocker for release.