hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Yang <ud1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSS: How can we have less branches?
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2017 03:45:42 GMT
Another option is no 1.5/branch-1 any more. What new features we are going
to have in HBase 1.5 (if it will be released)? Backporting from branch-2 to
branch-1 is not easy, so maybe we will not have any big feature in branch-1
after releasing 1.4. And if we release 1.5 after releasing 2.0, it may
confuse users. So IMO we can focus on branch-2 for new features.

I think it will be good if we have fixed logic for EOL branches, for
example(just an example, can discuss):
1:Release a final version and EOL 1.x after we think 1.x+1 is stable.
2:Cut off new 1.x+2 branch after 1.x+1 is stable, don't cut too early.

Then we will not need discussing each time for each branch EOL and we will
have a fixed number of maintaining branches.

Thanks,
Phil


2017-08-09 1:44 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>:

> Well you are not wrong that branching was premature, it turns out. But I'll
> roll with it...
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Zach York <zyork.contribution@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > I made branch-1.4 a few weeks ago only.
> >
> > Whoops, sorry for that! For some reason I thought I had seen it months
> ago.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 from me on making 1.1 our LTS. Either 1.1 or 1.2 are candidates. I
> > think
> > > 1.1 has the edge because it lacks locking changes introduced into 1.2,
> > just
> > > like 1.2 lacks locking changes introduced in 1.3 - the latter of which
> > has
> > > had far reaching consequences, and the former not an insignificant
> change
> > > either.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:15 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > The discussion also brought up the notion of an LTS release
line.
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure how this jives with the more fequent minors, but would
> require
> > > > some
> > > > > > branch that's so stable that an RM can effectively spin releases
> > > blind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems to me like this branch would necessarily need to be very
> > > > > backport-light? Only the top of the highest priority issues would
> be
> > > > > backportable to it, no?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The LTS is as 1.1 is today -- bug fixes only. The difference here is
> > we'd
> > > > "formally" recognize the LTS designation somehow, perhaps with a
> > symlink
> > > > marker as we do for the "stable" designation.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Last time we DISCUSSed EOL of 1.1 was back in November. At that
> > > time, a
> > > > > > litany of issues were raised re: 1.2. Have those concerns been
> > > > addressed?
> > > > > > It seems to me that making this one the last release is too
> abrupt
> > to
> > > > > folks
> > > > > > tracking Apache. Would be better to give some notice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Had a nice hallway conversation a couple months back (at
> > PhoenixCon,
> > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > > happens; they feel the pain as well) about our branch situation.
> > I'll
> > > > let
> > > > > > the others chime in with more details, but the gist as I recall
> is
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > should be doing more frequent minor releases with fewer patch
> > > releases.
> > > > > > This pushes stabilization efforts closer to master and also
> imposes
> > > > more
> > > > > > strict stability requirements on big new features before they
can
> > be
> > > > > merged
> > > > > > off the feature branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The discussion also brought up the notion of an LTS release
line.
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure how this jives with the more fequent minors, but would
> require
> > > > some
> > > > > > branch that's so stable that an RM can effectively spin releases
> > > blind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:14 AM Stack <stack@duboce.net>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > (This came up during dev meeting in Shenzhen) We are running
> too
> > > many
> > > > > > > branches and/or when applying patches, we do not do a good
job
> > > > > > backporting
> > > > > > > to all active branches, especially fixes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have master, branch-2, branch-1, branch-1.4, branch-1.3,
> > > > branch-1.2,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > branch-1.1 active currently. If a dirty bug fix, the applier
is
> > > > > > backporting
> > > > > > > to 7 branches. It takes a while applying to all especially
if
> the
> > > > > > backport
> > > > > > > doesn't go in clean. I suppose the RM could monitor all
> upstream
> > of
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > and then pull wanted patches back (we could do that too)
but
> > seems
> > > > > like a
> > > > > > > burden on an RMer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should EOL a few?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nick is on branch-1.1 release at the moment. Perhaps this
could
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > off branch-1.1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.2 hosts our current stable release though 1.3 is out.
How
> about
> > > we
> > > > > cut
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > release off 1.3, call it stable, and then EOL 1.2 after
another
> > > > release
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > so?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you all think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > S
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > > decrepit hands
> > >    - A23, Crosstalk
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>    - A23, Crosstalk
>

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