accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 17:18:14 GMT
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