I don't see how changing the process and banning feature commits is going to be any help to the project. There may be a couple committers who are interested in committing new features.
I'm a -1 on changing the branching strategy in a way that prevents people from working and collaborating on an Apache project. On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:56 AM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I did not see a -1 but all +0s and a few +1s. > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:49 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > > What did we land on? Sounds like we're pretty split without consensus on > > "change the old branching strategy and reject new things on trunk during > > stabilization" vs. "keep doing things the way we did but message strongly > > that we won't be reviewing new things until 4.0 is stable". > > > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Does anyone has any more feedback on this? > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 05:36, Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > For what it’s worth, I’m fine with both formal branching-level freeze > > > and informal ‘let people commit to trunk if they can find a reviewer’ one > > > and will support either. > > > > > > > > So long as either/both are communicated to the contributors, the only > > > difference is in where new feature work gets accumulated: will stay a bit > > > longer in personal branches in the latter way. > > > > > > > > — > > > > AY > > > > > > > > On 4 July 2018 at 01:30:40, sankalp kohli (kohlisank...@gmail.com) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Having an explicit way to tell the community that we all will work on > > > > testing is better than writing a patch which will sit without review > > > for > > > > months. I think not having your patch reviewed for months is more > > > > discouraging than following the community and helping with stability of > > > > 4.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:02 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> We propose that between the September freeze date and beta, a new > > > branch > > > >>> would not be created and trunk would only have bug fixes and > > > performance > > > >>> improvements committed to it. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> This is more of a call to action and announcement of intent than an > > > attempt > > > >>> to > > > >>> enforce policy; we can and probably will branch off 4.0, and keep > > > trunk > > > >>> technically active. > > > >> > > > >> These are two very different statements. :) Which is it? > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:57 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> If we want to have a stable, usable 4.0.0 release out in the next > > > 6-12 > > > >>> months, there needs to be a focused effort on getting it out - or > > > else > > > >>> it’ll just never happen. > > > >>> > > > >>> This is more of a call to action and announcement of intent than an > > > >>> attempt to enforce policy; we can and probably will branch off 4.0, > > > and > > > >>> keep trunk technically active. But so long as there is a critical > > mass > > > of > > > >>> active contributors who are on board with only/mostly working on > > > >> stability, > > > >>> bug fixes, and validation - both as assignees and reviewers - we’ll > > > have > > > >> a > > > >>> de-facto freeze. > > > >>> > > > >>> And I have a feeling that there is such a critical mass. > > > >>> > > > >>> — > > > >>> AY > > > >>> > > > >>> On 3 July 2018 at 22:23:38, Jeff Jirsa (jji...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> I think there's value in the psychological commitment that if someone > > > has > > > >>> time to contribute, their contributions should be focused on > > > validating a > > > >>> release, not pushing future features. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I agree with Josh. I don’t see how changing the convention around > > > trunk > > > >>>> will improve the process, seems like it’ll only introduce a handful > > > of > > > >>>> rollback commits when people forget. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Other than that, it all makes sense to me. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I’ve been working on a workload centric stress tool on and off for a > > > >>> little > > > >>>> bit in an effort to create something that will help with wider > > > adoption > > > >>> in > > > >>>> stress testing. It differs from the stress we ship by including > > > fully > > > >>>> functional stress workloads as well as a validation process. The > > > idea > > > >>> being > > > >>>> to be flexible enough to test both performance and correctness in > > > LWT > > > >>> and > > > >>>> MVs as well as other arbitrary workloads. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_thelastpickle_tlp-2Dstress&d=DwIFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=qK2RkRAsGtixYf0IgKlRBYLfTrXyOKED9OOTyMVvDf4&m=l_G2ByhfCyu3k9TzNVqiagdVQ8vOMJqHZvDq_JKvbiQ&s=f8gf_JCP6JRQIRkL_1R_zJOS_6gdAAsLleDr2PZHppE&e= > > > > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Jon > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:28 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Why not just branch a 4.0-rel and bugfix there and merge up while > > > >>> still > > > >>>>> accepting new features or improvements on trunk? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I don't think the potential extra engagement in testing will > > > balance > > > >>> out > > > >>>>> the atrophy and discouraging contributions / community engagement > > > >>> we'd > > > >>>> get > > > >>>>> by deferring all improvements and new features in an open-ended > > > way. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:33 PM sankalp kohli < > > kohlisank...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi cassandra-dev@, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> With the goal of making Cassandra's 4.0 the most stable major > > > >>> release > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>>> date, we would like all committers of the project to consider > > > >>> joining > > > >>>> us > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>>>> dedicating their time and attention to testing, running, and > > > fixing > > > >>>>> issues > > > >>>>>> in 4.0 between the September freeze and the 4.0 beta release. This > > > >>>> would > > > >>>>>> result in a freeze of new feature development on trunk or branches > > > >>>> during > > > >>>>>> this period, instead focusing on writing, improving, and running > > > >>> tests > > > >>>> or > > > >>>>>> fixing and reviewing bugs or performance regressions found in 4.0 > > > >>> or > > > >>>>>> earlier. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> How would this work? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> We propose that between the September freeze date and beta, a new > > > >>>> branch > > > >>>>>> would not be created and trunk would only have bug fixes and > > > >>>> performance > > > >>>>>> improvements committed to it. At the same time we do not want to > > > >>>>> discourage > > > >>>>>> community contributions. Not all contributors can be expected to > > > be > > > >>>> aware > > > >>>>>> of such a decision or may be new to the project. In cases where > > > new > > > >>>>>> features are contributed during this time, the contributor can be > > > >>>>> informed > > > >>>>>> of the current status of the release process, be encouraged to > > > >>>> contribute > > > >>>>>> to testing or bug fixing, and have their feature reviewed after > > > the > > > >>>> beta > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>>>> reached. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> What happens when beta is reached? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Ideally, contributors who have made significant contributions to > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> release will stick around to continue testing between beta and > > > >>> final > > > >>>>>> release. Any additional folks who continue this focus would also > > > be > > > >>>>> greatly > > > >>>>>> appreciated. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> What about before the freeze? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Testing new features is of course important. This isn't meant to > > > >>>>> discourage > > > >>>>>> development – only to enable us to focus on testing and hardening > > > >>> 4.0 > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>>> deliver Cassandra's most stable major release. We would like to > > > see > > > >>>>>> adoption of 4.0 happen much more quickly than its predecessor. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for considering this proposal, > > > >>>>>> Sankalp Kohli > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> Jon Haddad > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rustyrazorblade.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=qK2RkRAsGtixYf0IgKlRBYLfTrXyOKED9OOTyMVvDf4&m=l_G2ByhfCyu3k9TzNVqiagdVQ8vOMJqHZvDq_JKvbiQ&s=paSngQpMm3DhoWay8lDuWEYELVOrti8evQeT1LodXdY&e= > > > > > > >>> > > > >>>> twitter: rustyrazorblade > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > -- Jon Haddad http://www.rustyrazorblade.com twitter: rustyrazorblade --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
