If those changes are tested and ready to go for 1.10, I don't have a problem including them. However, from what I understand, they need some additional testing/polishing. I wouldn't want that to hold up this release. We could easily include them in the next (1.10.3) if they are ready after this though.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:36 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have some GC fixes I am working on that I would like to get into the > 1.10.2 release. > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1377 > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/2322 > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 4:25 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > That PR adds a new feature that is currently forward-incompatible in > > behavior with 1.10.0 and 1.10.1. New features are supposed to go into the > > next release, not patched into a bugfix on a release line that is > intended > > to be stable long term. > > > > While our semver and LTM guidelines are just guidelines, and we can break > > them when we want/need to, I think the project is better served if that > > were rare. Every time we stretch/break those guidelines, we normalize > > violating them, and the resulting reduced confidence in our software's > > stability can create a feedback loop where the instability creates > upgrade > > aversion, and the upgrade aversion increases the demand for backporting > > features. That's not sustainable, and it creates an unnecessary burden on > > the development side of things. I think having boundaries that resist > > against backporting features to stable branches creates a healthier > > relationship between the devs and the users. > > > > At this point, I'm a "soft" (not yet a veto) -1 to including that in > 1.10. > > I could be convinced if it were A) 100% forward compatible with > > 1.10.0/1.10.1 *and* either B) there was greater consensus for it among > the > > PMC or C) a good argument was made to justify adding the feature to a > patch > > release [A&(B|C)]. > > > > As for the schedule, I was thinking about creating a release candidate on > > Monday if there weren't any issues. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:56 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'd like to try and include > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2221. > > > A > > > little more testing needs to be done, do you have a schedule for the > 1.10.2 > > > release? > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 1:55 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm interested in putting together a 1.10.2 release with the changes > in > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2458 so that the 1.10 line > no > > > > longer requires log4j1, which has several vulnerabilities. Reload4j > was > > > > created as a fork from log4j1 from Apache by its original author in > order > > > > to provide a transition away from the CVE-riddled log4j1 jars. > > > > > > > > I'm sure we have a couple of other small bugfixes and improvements in > > > 1.10 > > > > that could benefit from being released as well. > > > > > > > > If there are any objections or last-minute tweaks that should be > included > > > > in 1.10.2, please discuss here. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > >
