hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSS: How can we have less branches?
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:31:14 GMT
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
> > >
> >
>

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