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] Question about 1.7 bugfix releases
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:43:25 GMT
We should remove the 1.6 stuff, since it went EOM back in September 2016.

FWIW, all the folks I have visibility into are running either 1.4 (I
know... :( ), 1.6, or 1.7. Granted this is biased by the fact that the
vast majority (but not all) are relying on something "Powered By"
those apache release versions and the provider of those "powered by"
bits don't offer anything based on 1.8.

I like the idea of having a LTS branch. Something analogous to what
I've seen other communities do by designating a "current stable"
release line that's expected to keep getting updates for longer. It
makes it easy to guide most folks towards using that version.

Another possibility is to change how we structure application of fixes
so that every developer doesn't have to deal with every active branch.
Apache Avro, for example, historically just had everyone patch to the
trunk branch and left it up to release managers to cherry pick back to
active release lines.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Mike Walch <mwalch@apache.org> wrote:
> My examples in my last email assume that 1.8 is the first LTS branch.  I
> think this makes sense as 1.8 should be the last 1.x release.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM Mike Walch <mwalch@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> This debate seems to come up frequently and the viewpoints expressed seem
>> to represent one of two groups of Accumulo users:
>>
>> 1. conservative, enterprise users that want to avoid upgrades and want
>> long-term support.
>> 2. early adopters and developers that want frequent minor releases as they
>> are willing to upgrade and don't care about long-term support.
>>
>> I think our goal should be keep both groups happy as enterprise users
>> typically pay the bills and early adopters/developers help test out new
>> releases and features.
>>
>> Currently, we advertise a 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 release on our downloads page.
>> If I was an enterprise user, I would not know which release to use or
>> upgrade to.  I think we should instead identify certain minor releases as
>> long-term support releases (LTS) (like Ubuntu) and push enterprise users to
>> use them.
>>
>> Our website and downloads push could advertise the latest release and the
>> latest LTS release.  This could allow us to minimize the number of
>> maintenance branches by only supporting the latest minor release branch and
>> latest LTS branch.  For example, if our latest release is 2.2.0, we can
>> drop support for the 2.0 & 2.1 branches but support new bugfix releases on
>> the 2.2 and 1.8 branches.
>>
>> If the 2.2 branch is identified as the next LTS branch, we could develop
>> an easy upgrade script for enterprise users to go directly from 1.8 to 2.2
>> (skipping 2.0, 2.1).
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:18 PM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Many users in enterprise spaces have rules for upgrading to
>>> > >> a new maintenance release that are different from upgrading to
a new
>>> > >> minor release. Those rules presume a uniform understanding of the
>>> > >> risks involved in each of those kinds of releases that I don't
think
>>> > >> exists, especially across open source projects, but nonetheless
those
>>> > >> are the rules the organization is stuck with. For those users,
>>> > >> continued maintenance releases that include critical bug fixes
are
>>> key
>>> > >> to allowing them to consume our releases.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > > I agree that occurs, but I also think that such rules in enterprises
>>> > don't
>>> > > exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of what the project
>>> itself
>>> > is
>>> > > doing. Choosing to upgrade to a new maintenance release is only an
>>> option
>>> > > when the upstream project is still producing maintenance releases.
>>> Since
>>> > > that's at the core of what this discussion is about, the question
>>> becomes
>>> > > something like "If we do this, will we be encouraging [enterprise and
>>> > > other] users to use the latest minor.patch release on their next
>>> upgrade
>>> > > cycle, or are we discouraging them from upgrading at all?" I don't
>>> know
>>> > the
>>> > > answer, but if it's the latter, the next question is "Can we correct
>>> for
>>> > > any misperceived risks by better communicating what we know about
>>> upgrade
>>> > > risks to newer minor versions?" I don't know the answer to that
>>> question,
>>> > > either.
>>> > >
>>> > > In my experience with my "enterprise" customers, the reluctance to
>>> > upgrade
>>> > > seems to apply equally to all versions. I recently provided support
to
>>> > > somebody still running 1.5.0, in spite of the 1.5 line being on 1.5.4
>>> and
>>> > > *very* EOL, because of reluctance to upgrade.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > In my limited experience, when ASF projects don't reliably make
>>> > maintenance releases, enterprise customers turn to vendors to provide
>>> > a source of conservative updates. Phrased another way, it's a thing
>>> > that I see pointed to for why a decision maker might pick a vendor
>>> > "powered by" an asf project rather than asf blessed releases.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I've seen that, too. Are you suggesting that's a problem?
>>>
>>> I'm interested in providing more frequent releases on fewer maintenance
>>> branches. But, if a vendor wants to provide an alternate upgrade path to
>>> fill a specific need for users with special requirements for earlier
>>> branches, I think that's fine.
>>>
>>



-- 
busbey

Mime
View raw message