accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: Reduced testing burden for bug-fix releases
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:31:27 GMT

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:

> On 6/23/14, 3:31 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> 2) We really could have used a [VOTE] on changing 1.x versions to use
>> bugfix for the last number. It would be an opportunity to formally adopt
>> our release governance docs into the PMC bylaws by reference.
> I don't see this as a huge issue since everyone seemed to be in agreement
> on it. Writing it down for reference would be good for future discussions
> on the subject.

I don't think everyone is in agreement on it. To wit, I remain opposed to

>> 3) As a point of principle, David's veto was completely valid as it stood.
>> While we are individuals it's perfectly reasonable for the PMC to set
>> requirements on what goes into a release we sign off on, even if the PMC
>> members may not always have ready access to the resources needed to meet
>> that standard.
>> There's no reason David should have to volunteer resources to back up his
>> veto, especially when it was merely calling for a continuation of the
>> standard we already had set.
> That's why I said "Unless you are willing to supply the funds to pay to
> use some resources, I don't feel like this is a valid -1." If he, or
> anyone, is willing provide general resources for testing, that's a
> different story. Given his response, I assume that is not the case.
But that's the opposite of what I just said. The opposition and the ability
to find funds are not strongly coupled.

The lack of funds would hopefully be a convincing argument to try to sway
someone that we should lower the testing barrier, but they aren't a
legitimate excuse for invalidating their vote. What if Hypothetical David
wanted to do fund raising to get resources together? Would you decide on a
deadline that would allow his vote to be legitimate or not?

The basis for a veto need merely be technical. "We've done this level of
testing before and it protects our users. We should continue doing it." is
a perfectly reasonable justification. (I admit I am taking some liberty in
making parts of David's previous concern more explicit)

BTW, situations like this are a part of why Majority Vote for governance
decisions are my preference. While I fully agree with David's ability to
veto I also agree that the community should be able to override him if no
funding source could be found.

>> 4) While I'm not in a position to obligate Cloudera, the team I'm on
>> currently has been allocated sufficient resources to meet the current
>> testing standards for a release and I have no reason to believe we won't
>> have said resources when future release windows happen.
> This would require time from you, Mike or Bill H, yes? While having some
> dedicated resources is nice, I'm worried about relying on other people (who
> have their own obligations) to fulfill the release manager's obligations.
> I think that gets into the details which the release manager can
> coordinate and other devs can express their concerns via the normal release
> voting process.
The release manager's only responsibility is to ensure the testing gets
done, not to do the testing themselves. That's why we're a community: so we
can rely on each other.

If a particular release manager needs help making sure the coverage
happens, they should just ask for that help when making the release plan.
Mike, Bill, and I are all capable of getting approval to block out time in
support of things that are good for Apache Accumulo.

(I am not actually sure it would require time from Mike, Bill, or me;
circumstances happen and "it depends." It's certainly easier for Mike,
Bill, or me to do it.)


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