incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Coli <rc...@digg.com>
Subject Re: Maintenance releases
Date Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:39:34 GMT
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusbabek@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are
> going into our maintenance releases for a while now.  [...]  IMO,
> maintenance releases (0.7.1, 0.7.2, etc.) should only contain bug
> fixes and *carefully* vetted features.
> [...]
> I'm willing to concede that I may have an abnormally conservative
> opinion about this.  But I wanted to voice my concern in hopes we can
> improve the quality and delivery of our maintenance releases.

It should surprise almost no-one that I am +1 on the above. :)

I'd like to also mention a potential semantic challenge regarding
"bug-fix" releases. Once a "bug-fix" is over a certain scope, or
involves a new technique to solve the old problem, it may qualify as a
"refactor" instead of a "bug-fix." I believe that we would benefit by
consciously attempting to avoid "refactors" while doing "bug-fix"
release. I understand that the above is semantic squish, but I think
the concepts can be a useful part of this discussion.

Peter Schuller also said :
> For example, from the point of view of the user, I think that
> things like CASSANDRA-1992 should preferably result in an almost
> immediate bugfix-only release with instructions and impact information
> for users.

+1 this very much, from an ops/DBA perspective. If, for example,
upgrading to a version can BREAK YOUR STORED DATA PERMANENTLY UNDER
NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS, that version should either be immediately
superceded by a paper-bag release containing only the relevant fix, or
a GIANT BLINKING RED WARNING should be posted everywhere indicating
its known-unsafeness.

=Rob

Mime
View raw message