Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-spark-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-spark-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B80617689 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54997 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2015 18:56:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-spark-dev-archive@spark.apache.org Received: (qmail 54917 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2015 18:56:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@spark.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@spark.apache.org Received: (qmail 54905 invoked by uid 99); 24 Mar 2015 18:56:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:56:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pwendell@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.41] (HELO mail-oi0-f41.google.com) (209.85.218.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:56:33 +0000 Received: by oifl3 with SMTP id l3so2086824oif.0 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=oI0pG47ShvNUsI+Z9VwNr1FbJktWLw60ZguV2UoTGhY=; b=QldBQOKJbt0J8IOT0JdOrnI70y1IdiBxZEDr4slzibeh9t9LzeNojg8lKVYaTyX8QG Sa2F0p1/LJKw1ZRp9G2WWvNVz03zm24o4KumvDAEmQJqw8yebnyRTTic6Z8neD8xOw5f HEPa4R60h5c8W23rSpNPdy9YUrC/U5MBo3hexvIshu+a1Drs2PFCVLY70OSo9iPE06NV HsESMOVaqMa9tg+5xa3f86olfsBNKl17W65l1aIelQ821S9Ok/KlD/Clg/bavYFx/oat tN2w+BKkkwx1t9LG0R+eIf3fkchKa23YC+drIe18L4LrYpTN/FHHTbhmrhO7JxcUUPuY /w/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.139.1 with SMTP id qu1mr4390421oeb.83.1427223327311; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.71.22 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:55:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Any guidance on when to back port and how far? From: Patrick Wendell To: Michael Armbrust Cc: Sean Owen , dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org My philosophy has been basically what you suggested, Sean. One thing you didn't mention though is if a bug fix seems complicated, I will think very hard before back-porting it. This is because "fixes" can introduce their own new bugs, in some cases worse than the original issue. It's really bad to have some upgrade to a patch release and see a regression - with our current approach this almost never happens. I will usually try to backport up to N-2, if it can be back-ported reasonably easily (for instance, with minor or no code changes). The reason I do this is that vendors do end up supporting older versions, and it's nice for them if some committer has backported a fix that they can then pull in, even if we never ship it. In terms of doing older maintenance releases, this one I think we should do according to severity of issues (for instance, if there is a security issue) or based on general command from the community. I haven't initiated many 1.X.2 releases recently because I didn't see huge demand. However, personally I don't mind doing these if there is a lot of demand, at least for releases where ".0" has gone out in the last six months. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Michael Armbrust wrote: > Two other criteria that I use when deciding what to backport: > - Is it a regression from a previous minor release? I'm much more likely > to backport fixes in this case, as I'd love for most people to stay up to > date. > - How scary is the change? I think the primary goal is stability of the > maintenance branches. When I am confident that something is isolated and > unlikely to break things (i.e. I'm fixing a confusing error message), then > i'm much more likely to backport it. > > Regarding the length of time to continue backporting, I mostly don't > backport to N-1, but this is partially because SQL is changing too fast for > that to generally be useful. These old branches usually only get attention > from me when there is an explicit request. > > I'd love to hear more feedback from others. > > Michael > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > >> So far, my rule of thumb has been: >> >> - Don't back-port new features or improvements in general, only bug fixes >> - Don't back-port minor bug fixes >> - Back-port bug fixes that seem important enough to not wait for the >> next minor release >> - Back-port site doc changes to the release most likely to go out >> next, to make it a part of the next site publish >> >> But, how far should back-ports go, in general? If the last minor >> release was 1.N, then to branch 1.N surely. Farther back is a question >> of expectation for support of past minor releases. Given the pace of >> change and time available, I assume there's not much support for >> continuing to use release 1.(N-1) and very little for 1.(N-2). >> >> Concretely: does anyone expect a 1.1.2 release ever? a 1.2.2 release? >> It'd be good to hear the received wisdom explicitly. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@spark.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@spark.apache.org