accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:43:14 GMT
I agree that our release "model" doesn't fully allow for a proper 
breadth of "changes" to the codebase.

My view of the current model is as Christopher described (long-term 
support and bugfix); however, how it was also described by a few others, 
the community wants "more" than this model provides

And, sorry for the tangent, but I be strongly in favor of 1.7 == 2.0 for 
numerous reasons, one of the biggest being this discussion.

As far as this discussion goes, I don't think we have the ability to 
maintain explicit bug-fix only (as described by "only fixes that cause 
errors") since things often get refactored internally for better test 
coverage, now invalidated assumptions, etc. I'd be in favor of playing 
fast-and-loose for the 1.x releases how we have (keeping each other 
honest) and follow an explicit model that doesn't have ambiguity in 
regards to interpretation for 2.0 (what is now 1.7).

On 4/4/14, 7:53 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> None of our previous 1.x releases met semver's requirements for a minor
> version, so I don't think we need to worry about adopting that approach as
> a part of the 1.6.0 release cycle.
>
> There are a ton of reasons I want  a 2.0.0. Given the significance of that
> change I think we should have a discussion about reqs.
>
> It's out of scope for this thread though.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It's probably true that 1.6.0 currently would not meet semver's
>> requirements for minor release compatibility, but something like this
>> I think should probably change at the beginning of a dev cycle, not at
>> the end. It seems to me that 1.7.0 would be the time to apply this,
>> considering it 1) has a different minimum JDK version, and 2) is
>> expected to contain a drastically improved client API module, where we
>> could actually apply maven plugins to ensure public API versioning
>> compliance naturally.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:48 AM,  <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I don't know the specifics of the api changes in 1.6.0. But I would be
>> curious, if we applied the rules of something like semver, if the version
>> of code in the 1.6.0 branch is not consistent with the 1.6.0 version
>> number, but is maybe a 2.0.0.
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: dlmarion@comcast.net
>>> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:59:44 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
>>>
>>>
>>> I like the idea of what semver defines (and provides in maven plugins). I
>>> don't think we are following this methodology today. I think people have
>> a
>>> tendency to want to backport or add features to patch releases because of
>>> the long running release cycles (I know I have). If we could get the
>>> testing/release cycle to be faster, then we could put out more minor and
>>> patch releases and not have long running releases. The other problem is
>>> users that are stuck on a particular version. They want the patches, but
>> not
>>> the api changes. If we could tell our consumers that 1.7 will be client
>> api
>>> compatible with 1.6, then users will likely upgrade faster and we will
>> have
>>> less pressure to backport features to a minor/patch release.
>>>
>>> +1 to the main idea of this thread, but I think "bug only" strictness for
>>> patch releases will be the positive side effect of faster
>> testing/releases
>>> and adopting some specification like semver.
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ctubbsii@gmail.com [mailto:ctubbsii@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Christopher
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:45 PM
>>> To: Accumulo Dev List
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
>>>
>>> I don't think that's it's quite true to say '1.major.minor' is our de
>> facto
>>> scheme. Once again, I think many of us have always viewed it as
>>> '1.long-term-support.bugfix'.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I agree with Christopher in principle, but I share Sean's concern
>>>> about the versioning situation. Right now, the *de facto* versioning
>>>> scheme is 1.major.minor. We should just adopt semantic versioning (or
>>>> similar) and then enforce bugs-only for bugfix releases. This gives us
>> the
>>>> room we need.
>>>>
>>>> For reference: semver.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Sean Busbey
>>>> <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Until we have a full discussion on compatibility and what we're going
>>>>> to mean for version numbers, this is counter productive to our
>>>>> volunteer-driven CtR process. That some of us choose to focus our
>>>>> resources on more recent major versions is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, we conflate minor and bugfix versions. This change would
>>>>> mean instead conflating our major and minor versions. That's going to
>>>>> make it harder for people to upgrade for compatible improvements
>>>>> because the inclusion of the major changes will be disruptive.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the compatibility and versioning discussion. This
>>>>> band aid won't help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JIRA JQL:
>>>>>>> 'project = ACCUMULO AND resolution = Unresolved AND type not
in
>>>>>>> (Sub-task, Bug) AND fixVersion in (1.4.6,1.5.2,1.6.1)'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are 32 outstanding issues not marked as "Bugs" planned
for
>>>>>>> bugfix releases. This seems inappropriate to me. I would prefer
>>>>>>> to be very strict about the right-most segment of a version
>>>>>>> number, by defining it as "for bugfix releases", and by following
>>>>>>> the rule: if the issue doesn't fix a bug, then it doesn't go
in a
>>>>>>> bugfix release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This strictness could help us focus on fixing and supporting
>>>>>>> actual bugs in previous releases, without being bogged down by
>>>>>>> non-bugs, it could help focus improvements in the latest version
>>>>>>> and encourage more rapid releases, and give users more reasons
to
>>>>>>> upgrade. It would also help stabilize previous releases, by
>>>>>>> avoiding the introduction of new bugs, which bodes well for
>> long-term
>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know we've previously talked about semver and other strict
>>>>>>> versioning schemes, but regardless of whether we do any of those
>>>>>>> other things, I think this strictness is the very least we could
>>>>>>> do, and we could start encouraging this strictness today, with
>>>>>>> minimal impact.
>>>>>>> All it would take is to define the last segment of the versioned
>>>>>>> releases as "for bugfix releases", regardless of defining the
>>>>>>> rest of the version number (which can be discussed separately,
>>>>>>> and this is a subset of most any versioning scheme we've discussed
>>>>>>> already).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implication is that some things we've done in the past to
>>>>>>> "backport" improvements and features, which didn't address a
bug,
>>>>>>> would no longer be permitted. Or, at the very least, would have
>>>>>>> been highly discouraged, or would have warranted a vote (see
next
>>>>>>> paragraph).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As with anything, there may be important exceptions, so perhaps
>>>>>>> with this strictness about "bugfix only for bugfix releases",
we
>>>>>>> could encourage (by convention, if not by policy) calling a vote
>>>>>>> for non-bugfix changes, and rely on the veto for enforcement
if a
>>>>>>> non-bugfix was applied to a bugfix version. If we agree to this
>>>>>>> strictness as a community, knowing a particular change is likely
>>>>>>> to result in a veto can be a big help in discouraging violations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a final note, I should mention that there are at least a few
>>>>>>> of us who have been thinking about this last segment of the
>>>>>>> version as "bugfix only" anyways, if only informally. The lack
of
>>>>>>> formalization/strictness about this, though, has permitted some
>>>>>>> things in the past that are probably not the best ideas in terms
>>>>>>> of stability and long-term support of previous release lines.
>>>>>>> Hopefully, by adopting this strictness as a community, instead
of
>>>>>>> just informally in a few of our heads, we can all get on the
same
>>>>>>> page, and it will make the project better overall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> // Bill Havanki
>>>> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message