accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 23:53:24 GMT
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
> >
>



-- 
Sean

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