accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Medinets <>
Subject Re: Reduced testing burden for bug-fix releases
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:20:30 GMT
-1 I hesitate to step into this discussion because I can't also step
up and do the long-term testing even as I recommend that it must be
done. There are at least four companies supporting Accumulo and
contributing back to the project. Surely one of those companies can
supply the resources to continue the existing test regimen? Is there
some concern that those resources won't be available for the next
release cycle?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
> As we're starting to consider 1.5.2 and 1.6.1 coming out in the near future,
> I want to revisit a discussion[1] I started at the end of April regarding
> the "testing burden" that is currently set forth in our release document[2].
> What I'm proposing is to modify the language of the release document to be
> explicit about the amount of testing needed. For bug-fix, "minor" releases
> (e.g. 1.5.2 and 1.6.1), the 7 days of testing using continuous ingest and
> randomwalk (with and without agitation) will be clearly defined as "may"
> instead of "should" or "must" language. If the resources are available, it
> is recommended that some longer, multi-process/node test is run against the
> release candidate; however, it is not required and should not prevent us
> from making the minor release.
> I will also include language that strongly recommends that the changes
> included in the "minor" release be vetted/reviewed as a way to mitigate the
> risk of shipping new regressions.
> I am not recommending that the language be changed for "major" releases
> (e.g. 1.7.0 and 2.0.0) as these releases still imply significant new
> features or internal changes.
> Unless someone informs me otherwise, I will treat this as a normal
> lazy-consensus approval. Assuming we move closer to "proper" semantic
> versioning for 2.0.0, I believe these updated guidelines will change again.
> I do however think there is merit in making this change now so that we can
> get the good bugs that we've fixed out to our users.
> Let me know what you think. I will wait, at least, the prescribed three days
> before changing any thing.
> - Josh
> [1]
> [2]

View raw message