accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 18:14:11 GMT
+1 Seems like no one is pushing for a longer lifetime for 1.5. 1.5.3 
makes sense.

Eric Newton wrote:
> +1 for EOL for 1.5.
>
> Making fixes in 1.5 and then merging it to 1.6, 1.7, and then master is
> tedious work. 1.5 makes the task more challenging because the layout of the
> packages changed so much in 1.6.
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> 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