For context, I do not have the physical resources available to me at any
point in time.
Time is also a concern, but usually less of one because I don't mind
working into evenings and weekends to get this done, and I can usually
work on my other priorities concurrently.
On 6/19/14, 12:38 PM, Christopher wrote:
I don't know Josh's concerns, but the concern for me is both resources and
time. No matter how much resources we have, it is still not infinite, and
I'd rather we focus our testing efforts on the changeset between the
previous release and the minor/bugfix release, rather than spend resources
and time on all the exhaustive general testing, which mostly exercises code
that has not changed.
For instance, do we really need 72-hours of continuous ingest on a large
cluster to release a bugfix which affects the shell?
If the long running tests are what is necessary to exercise the changeset,
that makes sense, but otherwise, no.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, David Medinets <[email protected]>
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
