avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Blue <b...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release and code management
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:34:21 GMT
My responses are inline.


On 11/06/2015 07:32 AM, Tom White wrote:
> I'm not sure that moving to a model where there are releases of individual
> components will increase the frequency of releases. There will still need
> to be a release manager for each component, and then there's a danger that
> the less maintained components will not get released at all.

My concern is that new components, like Miki's fastavro (python) and 
Matthieu's js implementation, already have significantly faster release 
cycles (see [1] and [2]). We want those to be successful in the Avro 
community and I think that blocking their fast release cycles on 
languages without maintainers is a community problem. Not delivering 
timely releases discourages participation.

I think a release manager per release, even if it is a python-only 
release, is fine. As I said, we've had less than one release per year 
lately so it isn't going to be that much overhead. And to your point 
about making releases easier, I think it is much easier to learn how to 
do releases with a small project.

We will need to discuss what to do about languages that aren't 
maintained. (Maybe in a separate thread?) I don't think we need to 
deprecate them as Phil suggested, but I also don't think it is right to 
continue releasing code with new version numbers that hasn't been 
updated in a year or more. I think separating the releases is the right 
thing to do here too: it signals to users that the component is still 
"current" but hasn't been released in a while. We're neither 
discouraging use or participation by deprecating it, nor are we making 
it appear more active than it is.

[1]: https://github.com/tebeka/fastavro/releases
[2]: https://github.com/mtth/avsc/releases

> I would rather continue to make the release process easier (Docker helps a
> lot) so that any committer can do it. We should be able to use the Docker
> work to run tests for all components with Jenkins to ensure that trunk is
> always in a releasable state.

Docker does help quite a lot, but it doesn't help when the problem isn't 
build-related. If Ruby contributors want to get a feature into a release 
or perl has a blocking bug or the C# implementation has license issues, 
we end up blocking all components.

> Where are we with the licensing issues? If we can get those worked out then
> I'd like to make a release (of all components).

The source tarball is nearly ready and a few implementations have 
updated license docs in the binary artifacts. We have a couple days work 
to go.

> I'm +1 on moving to git.
> Cheers,
> Tom
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ryan Blue <blue@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> It isn't just license problems, either. Releases that include all of the
>> languages can be blocked by bugs that need to be fixed in those languages
>> that are suggested during release planning.
>> It is also necessary to make sure the older language implementations still
>> build and pass tests, which can mean, for example, installing php and
>> fixing any tests that currently break. Tom's recent work to port the build
>> to docker really helps this situation, but that took patches to
>> unmaintained implementations and will still require maintenance.
>> I also disagree that it's always okay to re-release artifacts. Everything
>> is moving toward semantic versioning and I think that Avro should as well.
>> It is confusing to users to have an identical library released with a
>> version number that indicates a breaking change (though it appears not to
>> be by semver rules).
>> Each language should adopt a release cadence that works for its
>> contributors so that those contributors are able to use their work in
>> timely releases. Otherwise, I'm afraid that we will see fewer contributions
>> because of the long release cycle we currently have.
>> rb
>> On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>> we are currently blocked on all releases because of licensing errors
>>> in under-maintained libraries.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1722
>>> essentially Ryan and I slowly work our way through understanding each
>>> code base enough to do an evaluation and update things.
>>> It's been over 2 months now and it's a crappy situation to put our
>>> contributors in.
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Philip Zeyliger <philip@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I think it's always ok to re-release artifacts where nothing's changed.
>>>> So, how can you be blocked on another language's implementation if you
>>>> simply change the version number and re-release?
>>>> -- Philip
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Cloudera, Inc.

Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Cloudera, Inc.

View raw message