geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?
Date Fri, 26 Jul 2019 23:01:54 GMT
+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