hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Create "branch RM" roles for non releasing branches branch-1, branch-2 (when it exists), and master
Date Sat, 07 Jan 2017 02:07:42 GMT
I would like to see branch-1 be our new long term stable branch and so to be maintained for
roughly as long as 0.98 was: three years from first release (1.0.0). 

It would be maintained the same way as 0.98 was. I would like to drive monthly releases but
they would only be -SNAPSHOT and never advertised as an official release. So to get actual
shipping code I guess I'd have to bug the release RMs (smile). 

If the branch-1 RM felt like sweeping up changes and backporting for as long as he/she likes
that would be fine with me. If I were branch-1 RM I would do that on a monthly basis. Only
changes allowable on minor or point revisions according to our compatibility guidelines would
be allowed. 

We don't have a release branch RM for 1.4. I would be happy to take on that role too, but
I think it premature given 1.3.0 isn't even out yet. 


> On Jan 6, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I like this idea in general (and thanks for volunteering!).
> 
> Speaking specifically about branch-1 and given 2.0 release
> discussions, is it proper time/thread to also discuss what
> do we want to do with branch-1? Like, say that 1.4 would be
> the last release off this line and hence branch-1 should be
> turned to 1.4, and should we wind down backports to it?
> 
> -Mikhail
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> HBasers,
>> 
>> I would like to propose extending our informal "branch RM" concept just a
>> bit to include the nonreleasing branches like branch-1, branch-2 (when it
>> exists), and master. These branches are where all commits are made passing
>> through down to the releasing branches targeted for the change (like,
>> branch-1.1, branch-1.2, branch-1.3, etc.)
>> 
>> The releasing branches all have their own RM. I assume that RM is
>> diligently monitoring its state, by way of review of commit history,
>> occasional execution of the unit test suite, occasional execution of the
>> integration tests, and has perhaps some automation in place to help with
>> that on a nightly or weekly basis. No matter, let's assume there is a
>> nonzero level of scrutiny applied to them, which leads to feedback to
>> committers about inappropriate commits via compat guidelines, commits which
>> have broken unit tests, or other indications of quality or functional
>> concerns.  I think it would improve our overall velocity as a project if we
>> could also have volunteers tending the development branches upstream from
>> the releasing branches. Less work would fall to the RMs tending the release
>> branches if a common troublesome commit can be caught upstream first. In
>> particular I am thinking about branch-1.
>> 
>> I would like to volunteer to become the new RM for branch-1, to test and
>> refine my above proposal in practice. Unless I hear objections I will
>> assume by lazy consensus everyone is ok with this experiment.
>> 
>> What this would mean:
>> 
>>   - JIRAs like "TestFooBar is broken on branch-1" will show up sooner, and
>>   more likely with fix patches
>>   - Semiregular performance reports on branch-1 code as of date X/Y/Z, can
>>   compare with earlier reports for trending
>>   - Occasional sweep through master history looking for appropriate
>>   candidates for backport to branch-1, execution of said backport
>>   - Occasional 1B row ITBLL torture tests, probably if failure with bisect
>>   back to commit that introduced instability
>> 
>> What this does not mean:
>> 
>>   - The branch-1 RM will not attempt to tell other branch RMs what or what
>>   not to include in their release branches
>>   - The branch-1 RM won't commit anything backported from master to any of
>>   the release branches; it will continue to be up to the release branch
>> RMs
>>   what they would or would not like to be included
>> 
>> ‚ÄčAlso, I don't see why I couldn't spend some time looking at master now and
>> then.
>> 
>> I am going to assume our current co-RM team for branch-2 would maybe do
>> something similar for branch-2, once it materializes.
>> 
>> Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
>> ‚Äč
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>   - Andy
>> 
>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond
>> Teller (via Peter Watts)
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov

Mime
View raw message