geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dick Cavender <di...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:38:54 GMT
I'll take on the Release Manager role for Geode 1.10 with the 1.9.0 release
manager's help (Owen:).

I'd like to propose cutting the release/1.10 branch off develop sha:
dc6890107a2651d8ba1450e8db8a1c39d712fdc7

aka: 1.10.0-SNAPSHOT.476

Please speak up and discuss. We'll then start taking considerations for
additional changes for 1.1.0 after we get the branch and pipeline in place.

-Dick




On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:08 PM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@apache.org>
wrote:

> Thanks for calling this out Ernie!
>
> It might be a good idea to cut the release and at the same time keep
> looking for urgent issues that need to be resolved and merged. Once the
> branch is cut, we release likelihood of new issues being introduced.
>
> Does anyone know of any other issues, we'd want to make sure get addressed
> before we ship?
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Ernest Burghardt <eburghardt@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > There is a PR #3844 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3844> up to
> > address GEODE-7012 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7012> I
> > think this should be in the next release...
> >
> > EB
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:07 PM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > *Cutting the release*
> > > Do we have any volunteers to take over the release manager role?
> > >
> > > *Re: Udo's concerns*
> > > While I believe that iterations of this particular work have been
> > discussed
> > > on the mailing list as far back as March 2018, I do think that we
> should
> > > take Udo's response as an indicator that something with our larger
> > proposal
> > > process needs to be improved. We used to have synchronous Geode club
> > house
> > > sessions. For future discussions and for proposals in particular, I
> think
> > > it would be great to supplement our asynchronous mailing list
> > communication
> > > with a synchronous video chat discussions by the community.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:02 PM Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for cutting a 1.10.0 release branch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:55 PM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I believe the original authors of the feature has done their due
> > > > diligence
> > > > > and followed all steps, we can get this feature in under the
> > > Experimental
> > > > > flag and let the community improve on it, if there is anything else
> > > that
> > > > > needs to be done.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have done this before for Lucene re-index feature, where we
> > involved
> > > > the
> > > > > entire community in its development, phase by phase. The wiki is
up
> > and
> > > > > running, if someone has any concerns can raise it as a JIRA or
> > comment
> > > in
> > > > > the wiki and the community as a whole can decide if it is a valid
> > > > > concern or not and act upon it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:40 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > @Alexander + @Jared,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So maybe that was my misunderstanding on the RFC (not being
> > optional
> > > on
> > > > > > new feature work). Given that this is a new feature, there is
> > > > > > significant risk to getting it "wrong".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was expecting more discussion around this. I have some
> objections
> > > to
> > > > > > the current approach/design. Given that my day job does not
allow
> > me
> > > to
> > > > > > respond in a timely manner, I would have not been able to get
all
> > my
> > > > > > concerns raised. In addition, throwing something onto the wiki,
> and
> > > > then
> > > > > > a few weeks before we'd like to cut a version raising a
> discussion
> > > > > > thread on work that has been going on for months already does
not
> > > help
> > > > > > with the community being able to read, digest, think, reason
and
> > > > respond
> > > > > > BEFORE it is released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know `@Experimental` is non-binding on API's or usage, BUT
I
> > prefer
> > > > > > some of the ground work to have been discussed, API's validated
> > > BEFORE
> > > > > > it is released into the wild. I mean this is a PUBLIC API, so
> we'd
> > > > > > prefer to get it more correct than the previous one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe it is just me, taking it too serious... Where I prefer
not
> > > > release
> > > > > > something as close to 95% correct (and discussed).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway.. If we want to cut 1.10... and we should... Let's do
so..
> > but
> > > > > > I'd prefer that more on the correctness on the approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Udo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/25/19 11:08 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote:
> > > > > > >> I don't believe we should be including anything into
the Geode
> > > > release
> > > > > > >> that has not gone through the correct process of feature
> > proposal.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> All work under the experimental cluster management
service has
> > not
> > > > yet
> > > > > > >> been approved by the agreed upon RFC process.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > Udo, I didn't take the RFC process that we agreed on to
be a
> gate
> > > > > keeper,
> > > > > > > but rather a way to de-risk work before making a PR.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  From the RFC doc in the wiki:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> When to write an RFC?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Writing an RFC should be entirely voluntary. There
is always
> the
> > > > > option
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> going straight to a pull request. However, for larger
changes,
> > it
> > > > > might
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> wise to de-risk the risk of rejection of the pull request
by
> > first
> > > > > > >> gathering input from the community. Therefore it’s
up to every
> > > > member
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> our community to decide themselves when they want to
reach for
> > > this
> > > > > > tool.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > If we want to change the role of the RFC process, that's
fine
> > with
> > > > me,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > we should have that discussion first.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:30 AM Jared Stewart <
> > > > > stewart.jared@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> What was missing from the RFC process for the cluster
> management
> > > > > > service?
> > > > > > >> I saw a [Discuss] thread for it, as well as a proposal
at
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Cluster+Management+Service
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:02 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <
> udo@apache.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> I don't believe we should be including anything
into the
> Geode
> > > > > release
> > > > > > >>> that has not gone through the correct process of
feature
> > > proposal.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> All work under the experimental cluster management
service
> has
> > > not
> > > > > yet
> > > > > > >>> been approved by the agreed upon RFC process.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I don't believe we should be including this work,
> experimental
> > or
> > > > > > >>> otherwise.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --Udo
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On 7/22/19 4:51 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Udo, do you mind explaining how the RFC process
comes into
> > this?
> > > > Are
> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > >>>> suggesting that we should wait if an RFC had
a target
> release
> > > > > > attached?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:47 PM Udo Kohlmeyer
<
> udo@apache.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we need to wait for this,
as there has been
> no
> > > RFC
> > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > >>>>> followed.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --Udo
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On 7/22/19 3:38 PM, Jinmei Liao wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> Work is still being planned to move
the cluster management
> > > rest
> > > > > > >> service
> > > > > > >>>>>> under an experimental version flag
and use a geode
> property
> > to
> > > > > turn
> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >>>>>> on/off. I would say we are ready to
cut the geode 1.10.0
> > after
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >>> work
> > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>> complete.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:24 PM Alexander
Murmann <
> > > > > > >> amurmann@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> We released Geode 1.9.0 on April
25th. That's about 3
> > months
> > > > ago.
> > > > > > >> End
> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> last year we discussed releasing
quarterly. In the past
> > we've
> > > > had
> > > > > > >>> about
> > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> month between cutting a release
branch and actually
> > shipping
> > > > our
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > >>>>> minor.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> This means we are already behind
our target release
> > cadence.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> What are your thoughts on cutting
a 1.10.0 release branch
> > > this
> > > > > > week?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Would anyone like to volunteer
to be the release manager
> > for
> > > > > geode
> > > > > > >>>>> 1.10.0?
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thank you all!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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