accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <>
Subject Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:45:48 GMT
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Sean Busbey <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:35 PM, John Vines <> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > So I am interpreting it as all code modifications must be into the
> codebase
> > or review board by the freeze date. Which could be beneifical, however-
> > 1. What about the case where a patch needs to be modified? What if it's a
> > really minor change vs. a major change? Where's the line?
> >
> That's up to the release manager, though they can ask the community for
> feedback. :)
> Generally, I think this is a non-issue. review board lets you post updates
> to your patch. If it didn't, feedback would be useless. I don't think we're
> saying you can't update your review board.
> So I think it comes down to the feedback itself. if it suggests a change
> that you can incorporate into the existing patch, good to go. if it's
> requires a rewrite, then it sounds more like a -1 and goes to the
> removal-vote process.
> > 2. In the case of features that have multiple subtasks, they have
> > complementing features that  NEED to exist to make the main feature
> > usable/maintainable. What happens if we don't get those in?
> >
> That's why we have a call-to-remove part of the vote, right? committer
> votes will determine if a given feature has retained enough to be included.
> This is also a big advantage of review-then-commit and iterating within the
> ticket before pushing up. You can have these kind of inclusion
> conversations at a much lower cost when you aren't facing the prospect of
> trudging through a bunch of reverts.
> --
> Sean

All of your comments make sense to me. Unfortunately we're a bit stuck in
the latter category. Going forward we can make steps as a community to help
prevent it, but that doesn't change this release. And beside issue of
pulling out an incrementally committed feature, pulling out features lends
the potential for a release to be insubstantial.

So for the sake of the 1.6.0 release, what do we think we should do about
the sub-tasks for added/expected features? Particularly ones deemed
requisite for that feature to hit the mainline?

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message