accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:43:16 GMT

CtR is irrelevant. This can be enforced with vetoes, and if we agree
it's generally a bad idea, there's no reason we can't start vetoing
today, under CtR rules. The only thing that changes by coming to a
general agreement on this is perhaps less stigma and animosity for
leveraging vetoes to enforce this (and the ability to use brevity in
justifying a veto, as in "-1: we agreed we'd avoid this" instead of
"-1: this increases the risk of bugs, and has little benefit, and
detracts from current efforts, and ......." every time).

As I tried to point out towards the end, the "we conflate minor and
bugfix versions" is not quite true. Some of us have done that, but
others have been pushing for a long time to be more strict about not
doing this, and have pretty much always viewed that segment of the
versioning scheme as dedicated to bugfixes. In any case, even if it
were completely true that "we conflate..." today, it's irrelevant, as
the point of this email is an attempt to get us to *stop* performing
such conflations, not to acknowledge the past instances of them.

I don't know that this is a bandaid, so much as a subset of the larger
discussion of compatibility and versioning. And, since we generally
*don't* have a well defined API versioning standards, it does make
more sense to conflate "major/minor" rather than "minor/bugfix"...
especially since we've only ever had "minor" releases. I think this is
a much easier thing to agree on than one that discusses a full
versioning scheme when we don't even have our public API isolated from
our implementation very well (yet). I would hate for this to be
delayed until that is in place.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Sean Busbey <> 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 <> wrote:
>> +1
>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Christopher <> 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
>> >
>> >

View raw message