Re: [Jython-dev] 2.7.2 for the New Year?

[Jeff A. <ja...@fa...>]

I have read every open issue now on bugs.jython.org, understood the vast 
majority, commented on many of them, and investigated a few in depth. If 
it seemed to be invalid or fixed, I closed it or made it pending 
fixed/invalid/etc..

I use "pending" to mean "probably, but let's see what anyone else or 
experience tells us". 295 are open, 22 are "pending".

In a massive cull, I have taken the 2.7.2 milestone off all but 15. 
These are in the following categories:

 1. Obstacle to running Jython on Java 9. (We can't ignore that any
    longer, surely?)
 2. Obstacle to using with Gradle. (I need to understand it better -- or
    someone else does.)
 3. Actually or nearly resolved (significant recent progress, patch or
    just waiting confirmation fixed).
 4. Web site update (possible 16th issue to cover).

There is plenty of room to disagree about the choice. Also, *not* 
assigning to 2.7.2 is not a prohibition on contributing something you 
fancy doing. I assigned myself some I liked but don't think are 2.7.2 
blockers. Unfortunately, the first two could be complicated. As 
mentioned before, sockets & SSL is a recurring theme. I've not made any 
of those blockers, but it's the area where I feel it is most likely I am 
overlooking the importance of one or more issues.

I have not done a comparable sweep of GitHub on the assumption that 
anything vital has a counterpart on the official tracker.

I think we should shy away from risky change on the trunk once we tag a 
beta version (April sometime?). I have not assigned anything to 
milestone 2.7.3 because there isn't one (!) and I think we should do so 
at this stage only if we feel really strongly and are comfortable about 
our capacity. Better not to raise hopes than to dash them later.

Reading the issues was interesting, but having to keep reading instead 
of fixing them was frustrating, so I'm looking forward to doing some of 
that. Easter is coming, which will give me a few extra days. Anyone else 
able to give 2.7.2 a bit of a push?

Jeff

Jeff Allen

On 05/03/2018 09:26, Jim Baker wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> This makes sense to remove tags. Certainly there was optimistic 
> estimation of available resources on my part, based on what I was then 
> doing — I went from 50% (or more) availability 3 years ago, then 20% 2 
> years ago but combined with a heavy part-time teaching load, to 
> basically none at this moment. (But I hope to have some chance to 
> contribute by this summer!)
>
> We have a lot of great work in 2.7.2, so it's important to get this 
> out. My basic feeling is that the web site cleanup, especially moving 
> to some sort of ReadTheDocs approach, is the big thing that needs to 
> be done. Most likely everything else outstanding can go into a later 
> release.
>
> - Jim
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Jeff Allen <ja...@fa... 
> <mailto:ja...@fa...>> wrote:
>
>     I'm continuing the triage of issues, slowly. Given our rate of
>     work and jointly-expressed desire for a release, I find the only
>     rational course is to take off nearly all the 2.7.2 tags, unless
>     it would be harmful to release with that issue. (I might add some
>     on that basis.) I'll do my best to follow the comments on each
>     issue first.
>
>     I'll get this wrong many times, so if I've taken 2.7.2 off where
>     you can see Jython wouldn't be viable with that issue outstanding,
>     please argue it on the issue. Also, a good patch or commit is
>     close to an irrefutable argument for inclusion. Anyone is free to
>     to fix something just because they think it worthwhile or fun to
>     do: we're all volunteers.
>
>     That said, we have a fair number of issues related to sockets/SSL
>     that I find difficult to assess accurately and could not easily
>     work on. If your skills and interest run that way, they might be
>     good choices.
>
>     Some projects tag issues as "suitable for beginners". We don't
>     have such a tag, but as I go through the issues, I find Jim has
>     often done the like in a comment or given a hint towards the
>     likely solution, which is useful for the rest of us.
>
>     Other thoughts in line ...
>
>     Jeff
>
>     On 26/02/2018 03:00, fwi...@gm...
>     <mailto:fwi...@gm...> wrote:
>
>         Hi Jeff - some comments inline:
>
>         On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Jeff Allen
>         <ja...@fa... <mailto:ja...@fa...>> wrote:
>
>             It's still the New Year :)
>
>             We currently have 85 open bugs tagged Milestone 2.7.2, and
>             about 250 others.
>             (20 or so are tagged 2.7.1 or 2.7.0, but I think that's
>             mostly a
>             misunderstanding at the time they were raised.) It's hard
>             for me to say
>             which should be show-stoppers.
>
>             I thought I'd at least read them all. So far I've got 2
>             categories: "fairly
>             sure I can close" and "that's not simple".
>
>             I think we should have tagged as Milestone 2.7.2 only
>             those things we have a
>             serious intention to fix by the end of 2.7.2b, and
>             everything else
>             decisively put off. Knowledgeable contributions to this
>             process would be
>             welcome.
>
>         That sounds right to me, we can put others into a 2.7.3
>         Milestone perhaps.
>
>     No milestones are available for selection in the tracker beyond
>     2.7.2, so we can't express that idea at present. Also, I think it
>     means very little to add 2.7.3 until we start to plan it. Anything
>     not tagged is a candidate for 2.7.3 according to priority (or
>     fancy). Priority and severity are useful at all times, I think.
>
>     A 2.7.3 milestone could be in the database ready, however. Oddly,
>     I can report an error against 2.7.3 if I want, but not against 2.7.2.
>
>             I think (below) Frank bids a GitHub-based website as part
>             of the 2.7.2,
>             which I think is highly desirable for communication reasons.
>
>         Yes I need to look at the logistics of getting a github based
>         website
>         up and running. I'll try to find some time to look into that
>         soonish.
>
>     That would be great. And we need the basic content, of course,
>     before throwing the switch. I'm going to focus on the issues triage.
>
>     Jeff
>
>