accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 19:37:01 GMT
yay consensus! I'll email user@

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Ed Coleman <dev1@etcoleman.com> wrote:

> +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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Sean

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