accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Newton <eric.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 17:33:14 GMT
+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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message