geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ernest Burghardt <eburgha...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?
Date Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:35:41 GMT
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