accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ed Coleman" <d...@etcoleman.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 18:29:48 GMT
+1 for EOL of 1.5 with the release of 1.5.3

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5

So, at this point, I'm willing to do a 1.5.3 release and can start that today. It seems we're
in agreement we should at least do that.
Beyond that, I'm not really sure what the consensus is.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.5 has already started to suffer in terms of landing every bug-fix 
> there. I don't think it's intentional (I know I have done it though), 
> but it's kind of a sign that the devs have already mentally move beyond 1.5.
>
> I think JIRA is a clear sign that users aren't heavily using 1.5 (I 
> can't think of more than a couple tickets marked as affects 1.5.x), 
> but it would be nice to explicitly ask user@.
>
> A 1.5.3 to close things out would be nice -- can always be re-opened 
> if someone wants to scratch that itch.
>
>
> Sean Busbey wrote:
>>
>> that change to development procedure will definitely impact them. 
>> it'll mean folks no longer look for their bugs to impact the 1.5 
>> branch to start (unless things are critical). that basically 
>> guarantees that the rate of
>> 1.5 releases will slow, which impacts ops planning for those on the 
>> 1.5 line.
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> Feel free to include user@ sooner, if you wish. The reason I hadn't 
>>> already was because my suggested route would only be a shift in 
>>> development procedures, and wouldn't really change things from a 
>>> user perspective. Alternatives to what I suggest may affect them 
>>> more strongly. We definitely should CC them when we have a decision, 
>>> though.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Sean Busbey<busbey@cloudera.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> oh! almost forgot. We should get user@accumulo into this 
>>>> conversation sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if it's  better 
>>>> ot just copy them
>>>
>>> in
>>>>
>>>> to this thread or do it as a follow up once we have more of an idea 
>>>> of
>>>
>>> what
>>>>
>>>> "EOL" means for them.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Sean Busbey<busbey@cloudera.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to making sure we have a 1.5.3 before stop dev
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to make sure we get through some testing of 1.5 ->  1.7 
>>>>> upgrade testing before declaring dev over, just to give people 
>>>>> more assurance
>>>
>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>> they can upgrade off of the version.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do we want to EOL 1.5?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I was thinking (soon after 1.7.0 is released):
>>>>>> * Release and tag 1.5.3
>>>>>> * Remove 1.5 branch to focus active development on newer versions
>>>>>> * Be willing to branch from the 1.5.3 tag to rapidly release a 
>>>>>> 1.5.4 in response to critical bugs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My biggest concerns are:
>>>>>> 1) We turn exhausted people off by doing burdensome release 
>>>>>> testing, which delays bugfixes in 1.5, and
>>>>>> 2) We get into a situation where 1.5.3 has some bugs that we 
>>>>>> never fix, which sends a confusing message to stick with 1.5.2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's also the concern that there's a fair amount of work that

>>>>>> was put into 1.5.3, and I'd hate to have those contributions not

>>>>>> be available to users of 1.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I figure that so long as we're willing to fix critical bugs, we 
>>>>>> can formally cease active development (EOL), without going so far

>>>>>> as to say that 1.5 users are completely screwed if a critical bug

>>>>>> is identified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I'm describing isn't really an EOL date, so much as an EOL 
>>>>>> period which begins when we cease active development on 1.5, and

>>>>>> ends organically at some arbitrary point in the future when 
>>>>>> people stop reporting critical bugs (or we reach a point where 
>>>>>> maintaining it is too costly... a sort of "EOL-2").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another way to look at what I'm suggesting is switch from a 
>>>>>> "sustained development" model to a "branch to fix and release" 
>>>>>> model, where patch/bugfix releases are more narrowly scoped and 
>>>>>> can occur more rapidly, on demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts? Alternatives? Variations? Objections?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sean
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message