hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2016 20:36:50 GMT

It is truly disappointing how we are escalating situations that can be resolved through basic

Things that shouldn’t have happened
- After a few objections were raised, commits should have simply stopped before restarting
again but only after consensus
- Reverts (or revert and move to a feature-branch) shouldn’t have been unequivocally done
without dropping a note / informing everyone / building consensus. And no, not even a release-manager
gets this free pass. Not on branch-2, not on trunk, not anywhere.
- Freaking out on -1’s and reverts - we as a community need to be less stigmatic about -1s
/ reverts.

Trunk releases:
	This is the other important bit about huge difference of expectations between the two sides
w.r.t trunk and branching. Till now, we’ve never made releases out of trunk. So in-progress
features that people deemed to not need a feature branch could go into trunk without much
trouble. Given that we are now making releases off trunk, I can see (a) the RM saying "no,
don’t put in-progress stuff and (b) the contributors saying “no we don’t want the overhead
of a branch”. I’ve raised related topics (but only focusing on incompatible changes) before
- http://markmail.org/message/m6x73t6srlchywsn <http://markmail.org/message/m6x73t6srlchywsn>
- but we never decided anything.

We need to at the least force a reset of expectations w.r.t how trunk and small / medium /
incompatible changes there are treated. We should hold off making a release off trunk before
this gets fully discussed in the community and we all reach a consensus.

> * Without a user API, there's no way for people to use it, so not much
> advantage to having it in a release
> Since the code is separate and probably won't break any existing code, I
> won't -1 if you want to include this in a release without a user API, but
> again, I question the utility of including code that can't be used.

Clearly, there are two sides to this argument. One side claims the absence of user-facing
public / stable APIs, and that for all purposes this is dead-code for everyone other than
the few early adopters who want to experiment with it. The other argument is to not put this
code before a user API. Again, I’d discuss with fellow community members before making what
the other side perceives as unacceptable moves.

From 2.8.0 perspective, it shouldn’t have landed there in the first place - I have been
pushing for a release for a while with help only from a few members of the community. But
if you say that it has no material impact on the user story, having a by-default switched-off
feature that *doesn’t* destabilize the core release, I’d be willing to let it pass.

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