geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karen Miller <kmil...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:51:11 GMT
I'd like to see the changes from
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7013 included in the Geode 1.10
release. GEODE-7013's changes restore gfsh help/hint behavior that was lost
during a refactor in the earliest
releases of Geode.  The commit occurred after SHA1
dc6890107a2651d8ba1450e8db8a1c39d712fdc7.
Thanks.  Karen


On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:39 AM Dick Cavender <dixie@apache.org> wrote:

> 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