accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Dev branches reflecting minor/major versions, not bugfixes
Date Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:41 GMT
The one clarification here is that I don't think we should have a
long-lived 1.6.1 branch.

For 1.5.2, I think we should plan a 1.5.2 release soon, and then
eliminate the long-lived development branch for 1.5.x, in favor of a
short-lived 1.5.x bugfix branches that are oriented around specific
bugs (since we have two outstanding supported branches, we'd probably
fix the same bug in both and release bugfixes for each together,
depending on the release plan put forward by whoever is calling for a

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Bill Havanki
<> wrote:
> I like this plan overall. I am definitely in favor of more frequent,
> lighter-weight bugfix releases. We can start to move toward a regular
> schedule of them, based on whether there is enough there to warrant one
> each month / two months / whatever.
> We could start by branching off 1.6.0 now, and merging in whatever bug fix
> commits make sense (pending a discussion as Christopher suggested). It can
> be kept in a ready-to-release condition, for whenever it's "time" for 1.6.1.
> What about 1.5.x? That will still receive feature changes as well as bug
> fixes, I assume, until it goes EOL.
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>> On 5/12/14, 10:41 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Josh Elser<>  wrote:
>>>  >SGTM. Looks like there aren't currently any fixes of much substance for
>>>> >1.6.1 presently, but there are a few that would make for a very-low
>>>> impact
>>>> >1.6.1, and a good 1.5.2 which also includes the fallout tickets shortly
>>>> >after 1.5.1. Timeframe looks good to me too.
>>>> >
>>>> >If we can get that reduced test burden for "real" bug-fix releases
>>>> >hammered out, a month sounds good to me.
>>> Rather than reduce the test burden, it would be nice to make the cluster
>>> testing more automated like you and other have discussed.
>> I think that would be a good parallel goal, but I would still think that 7
>> days of testing for a bug-fix release is excessive. Most times for me the
>> pain is getting resources to test for such a long period, not necessarily
>> setting up the test.
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283

View raw message