I'm sorry, David, but you need to remember that we are individuals.
My employer is absolutely irrelevant from the equation. Unless you are
willing to supply the funds to pay to use some resources, I don't feel
like this is a valid -1.
On 6/19/14, 12:20 PM, David Medinets wrote:
-1 I hesitate to step into this discussion because I can't also step
up and do the long-term testing even as I recommend that it must be
done. There are at least four companies supporting Accumulo and
contributing back to the project. Surely one of those companies can
supply the resources to continue the existing test regimen? Is there
some concern that those resources won't be available for the next
release cycle?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
As we're starting to consider 1.5.2 and 1.6.1 coming out in the near future,
I want to revisit a discussion[1] I started at the end of April regarding
the "testing burden" that is currently set forth in our release document[2].
What I'm proposing is to modify the language of the release document to be
explicit about the amount of testing needed. For bug-fix, "minor" releases
(e.g. 1.5.2 and 1.6.1), the 7 days of testing using continuous ingest and
randomwalk (with and without agitation) will be clearly defined as "may"
instead of "should" or "must" language. If the resources are available, it
is recommended that some longer, multi-process/node test is run against the
release candidate; however, it is not required and should not prevent us
from making the minor release.
I will also include language that strongly recommends that the changes
included in the "minor" release be vetted/reviewed as a way to mitigate the
risk of shipping new regressions.
I am not recommending that the language be changed for "major" releases
(e.g. 1.7.0 and 2.0.0) as these releases still imply significant new
features or internal changes.
Unless someone informs me otherwise, I will treat this as a normal
lazy-consensus approval. Assuming we move closer to "proper" semantic
versioning for 2.0.0, I believe these updated guidelines will change again.
I do however think there is merit in making this change now so that we can
get the good bugs that we've fixed out to our users.
Let me know what you think. I will wait, at least, the prescribed three days
before changing any thing.
- Josh
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201404.mbox/%3C535931A7.30605%40gmail.com%3E
[2] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
