camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <>
Subject Re: Camel 2.8.2 - Reason for the many backports?
Date Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:53:49 GMT
For my part it is the principle - at some point this will go wrong - doing what Chistian suggested
makes a lot of sense. And, users in production want stability, fixes are good, new features
leads naturally to concern about stability. It should be good practice to give a heads up
at least, before backporting new features. 

On 21 Sep 2011, at 14:33, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

> This is an emotional non-discussion. The question in the title is what is the reason
for the *many* backports. An explanation was also given: if they are *many* bugs (or improvements),
they should be fixed, and in dkulp's opinion not only on the trunk but also on the maintained
branches. There is also an expectation for the fixes to be backwards compatible, which is
absolutely normal. From what I see the expectation was fulfilled.
> Rob seems to imply that he trusts Dan to do the right thing, but he's concerned about
the precedent he sets for the less talented rest of us who might go wild and break things.
> Did I get it right? Is there a particular commit that triggered this question, or is
more the principle?
> Hadrian
> On 09/21/2011 01:36 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
>> Dan it admirable what you want to do but it would be better to encourage collective
best practice - so we do not break backward compatibility on a released branch. That's why
discussing adding new features, or changes to dependencies on the DEV list first is a good
idea. it will set the pattern that others will follow. Its not that we expect that you will
break anything, but others might do by accident.
>> On 21 Sep 2011, at 04:08, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:20:20 PM Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>> Hi Dan
>>>> Do you care to discuss this?
>>>> You keep on backporting non bug fixes, new features and whatnot.
>>>> People who run Camel in production and they may want to upgrade to
>>>> 2.8.2 due to a bug.
>>>> They frankly do not like a lot of changes. As any change in a
>>>> production system is not desireable.
>>> And there are even more people that are trying to move their applications from
>>> development into testing or production and cannot because they are hitting
>>> specific bugs or require some trivial features or issues to be resolved.
>>> If a user reports a bug (and even better, provides a patch), we definitely owe
>>> it to them to get that fix pulled back relatively quickly.   Camel has
>>> historically done a VERY poor job of doing that.  I keep talking to people
>>> that have either had to fork Camel internally to get patches applied or go to
>>> a third party to demand various things ported back.     In both cases, I just
>>> cringe as that shows that we, as a community, have failed our users.
>>> Likewise, if a user needs a trivial change in order to get Camel into
>>> production, we should try and get that change to them WITHOUT a huge upgrade
>>> hassle.   Things like new methods, new config options (as long as the defaults
>>> remain as before), etc...  that would have no impact on existing users, but
>>> makes it possible to use Camel by a wider audience.
>>>> So the gap from 2.8.0, 2.8.1 to 2.8.2 is now very big. This is not
>>>> desireable.
>>> Compared to any CXF patch release, it's about average at this point.
>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Claus Ibsen<>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> Dan what is the reason why you backport so many commits to 2.8.2 from
>>>>> 2.9?
>>>>> The "problem" is that its a lot of new features, non trivial bug fixes
>>>>> and whatnot.
>>>>> People then may not have a safe upgrade from 2.8.0 / 2.8.1 to 2.8.2
>>>>> because of the "big difference".
>>>>> People is more prepared for a little trouble when doing 2.8.0 to 2.9.0
>>>>> upgrade. But not for an upgrade in 2.8.x branch.
>>>>> Also for new features and whatnot we update the documentation to
>>>>> indicate eg *Camel 2.9* that
>>>>> this is a new feature in that version. These documentation changes is
>>>>> not part of the SVN and thus
>>>>> you lose this, and cannot keep the documentation<->  source code
>>>>> sync.
>>> Yea.  Docs are definitely an issue.   I'll admit that.   They don't really end
>>> up "wrong",  but  not 100% correct either.   :-)      If you consider a
>>> feature not "complete" until documented, and it's not documented until 2.9,
>>> then the docs are correct if they say 2.9.    Yea, kind of a silly answer.
>>> Fixing the docs should definitely be done as well.   I'll try and look a
>>> little at that in the next couple days.   (and thanks Jon for the help!)
>>> In anycase, I'm trying to provide a usable solution for our users.   This
>>> processed has worked extremely well based on past experience.   If there is a
>>> particular commit that I merged back that you are particularly concerned
>>> about, feel free to bring it up.  We can work on finding a solution that would
>>> solve the problem in a way with less impact on the users.
>>> Dan
>>>>> --
>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>> Email:
>>>>> Web:
>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>>> Blog:
>>>>> Author of Camel in Action:
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> Talend -

View raw message