Totally agree — "Also — i’m aware that any additional branches/releases will add additional work for any developer that works on C*. It would be great if we could strike a balance that hopefully doesn’t add significant additional merging/rebasing/work for the team…”
That being said I don’t think i’m alone by identifying the problem. The proposed solution was what we came up with in the hour or so we discussed this in person. How else can you shrink the release schedule without creating another branch? Also — the idea is to only have this branch “active” during the overlap when major release branches need to stabilize. > On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If that's what we want, merging is going to be much more painful. > Currently we merge: > > 1.2->2.0->2.1->3.0 > > If we add an experimental branch for each, we still have to merge the > stable branch into experiemental: > > 1-2->1.2ex, 2.0->2.0ex, 2.1->2.1ex, 3.0->3.0ex > > And then the experimentals into each other: > > 1.2ex->2.0ex, 2.0ex->2.1ex, 2.1ex->3.0ex > > That's quite a lot of merging in the end. > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Jake Luciani <jak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure many people have the problem you are describing. This is more >> of a C* developer issue than a C* user issue. >> >> >> Is the below what you are describing we move to?: >> >> 1.2 -> 2.0 -> 2.1 -> 3.0 stable >> 1.2 <- 2.0 <- 2.1 <- 3.0 experimental >> >> Specific changes would be backported based on the "less riskyness" of the >> change which you are assuming will be constant across versions? >> >> -Jake >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Michael Kjellman < >> mkjell...@internalcircle.com> wrote: >> >>> It's a bit about features - but it's more an attempt to achieve the goals >>> of what might happen with a 4 week release cycle (but that itself -- in >>> practice didn't prove to be valid/reasonable). >>> >>> If something like an executor service for performance is changed (for >>> example) it is definitely a more risky change than what would currently >> go >>> into 1.2 -- but most likely we would want to get patches like that into a >>> usable build. >>> >>> So I guess: a) reduce code drift between branches we run in production b) >>> get newer "features" into production faster where breaking changes aren't >>> required for the scope of the patch. >>> >>> Additionally - it's also a question of what release we use when we >>> identify an issue we want to work on internally. If we are on 1.2 because >>> we can't yet take ALL of 2.0 - do we now need to target our work against >>> 1.2? I would rather write it against the months worth of changes that >> have >>> happened since. >>> >>> Finally, it's an attempt to make the internal forking not as common as it >>> might be today. As you said - this is somewhat of a common process. >>> >>>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:52 AM, "Jake Luciani" <jak...@gmail.com> wrote >>>> >>>> Hi Michael, >>>> >>>> I didn't get to hear the in person conversation so taking a step back. >>>> The proposal seems to be in response to a common problem. i.e. I'm on >>> C* >>>> version X and I need feature Y which is only available on version Z. Is >>>> this correct? >>>> >>>> The options have been: a) upgrade to version Z or b) fork C* and >>> backport. >>>> Coming my my previous job where I ran a prod C* cluster I felt this >> and I >>>> expect many others do too. We did have to fork and backport patches we >>>> needed and it was hard. >>>> >>>> This is specific to features and not bugs, since bugs are fixed in all >>>> versions affected. >>>> >>>> -Jake >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Michael Kjellman < >>>> mkjell...@internalcircle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Dev@ List— >>>>> >>>>> TL;DR: >>>>> I’d love it if we could modify the C* release cycle to include an >>>>> additional “experimental” release branch that straddles the current >>> major >>>>> releases that includes somewhat “untested” or “risky” commits that >>> normally >>>>> would only go into the next major release. Releases based from this >>> branch >>>>> wouldn’t contain any features that require breaking changes or are >>>>> considered highly “untested” or “risky” but would include the many >> other >>>>> commits that today are considered too unsafe to put into the previous >>>>> stable branch. This will allow us to run code closer to the current >>> stable >>>>> release branch when we are unable to move fully to the new major >> release >>>>> branch. Also, during the release cycle of the next major release >> branch >>> the >>>>> project can get feedback from a subset of the total changes that will >>>>> ultimately make it into that final new major release. Also — i’m aware >>> that >>>>> any additional branches/releases will add additional work for any >>> developer >>>>> that works on C*. It would be great if we could strike a balance that >>>>> hopefully doesn’t add significant additional merging/rebasing/work for >>> the >>>>> team... >>>>> >>>>> The Longer Story: >>>>> Last week I had a conversation with a few people regarding a proposed >>>>> change to the current C* release schedule. >>>>> >>>>> Other than an attempt to make Jonathan and Sylvian’s lives more >>> difficult, >>>>> it would be ideal if we could better sync our internal release >> schedule >>>>> with more recent Cassandra releases. The current cycle has resulted in >>>>> currently “active” branches for 1.2, 2.0, 2.1, and +3.0. Official >> stable >>>>> releases are from 2.0, beta’s/RC’s from 2.1, and there is the >> potential >>> for >>>>> another out-of-band 1.2/previous stable release build. We would love >> to >>>>> always run the current “stable” release in production but >>>>> generally/historically it takes time and a few minor releases to the >>>>> current “major” branch stable to get to a state where we can accept >> for >>> use >>>>> in production. Additionally, as major releases are currently used to >>> make >>>>> “breaking” changes that require a more involved and risky upgrade >>> process, >>>>> it’s a much bigger deal to deploy a new major into production than a >>>>> release without breaking changes. (upgrade-sstables for example is >>> required >>>>> when upgrading to a new major release branch. this unavoidable step >> adds >>>>> lots of temporary load to the cluster and means deploying/upgrading to >>>>> major releases tends to be a bit more risky than between minor >> releases >>> and >>>>> a more involved/long running process). This means even though there >> are >>>>> months worth of stable hard work/awesome improvements in the current >>>>> “stable” major release branch (today this is 2.0), we end up with an >>>>> unavoidable and undesired lag in getting more recent C* changes pushed >>> into >>>>> production. This means we are unable to provide feedback on newer >>> changes >>>>> sooner to the community, stuck and unable to get even a subset of the >>>>> awesome changes as we can’t yet take ALL the changes from the new >> major >>>>> release branch, and finally if we find an issue in production or want >> to >>>>> work on new functionality it would be ideal if we can write it >> against a >>>>> release that is closer to the next major release while also providing >>> us a >>>>> reasonable way to get the feature deployed internally on a branch we >> are >>>>> running. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, the project generally tends to include all >>> risky/breaking/more >>>>> “feature” oriented tickets only into the next major release + trunk. >>>>> However, there is a subset of these changes that are “somewhat” more >>> risky >>>>> changes but pose little/less/no risk the commit with introduce a >>> regression >>>>> outside of the scope of the patch/component. Additionally, any changes >>> that >>>>> depend on other higher risk/breaking commits/changes wouldn’t be >>>>> candidates for this proposed release branch. In a perfect world we >> would >>>>> love to target a new “interim” or “experimental” train of releases >>> which is >>>>> loosely the most stable current release train but also includes a >>> subset of >>>>> changes from the next major train. (While we were discussing we >> thought >>>>> about possible parallels to the concept of a LTS (Long Term Support) >>>>> release cycle and what some people have dubbed the “tick-tock” release >>>>> cycle.) This might look something like 1.2 branch + all >>>>> moderately-to-“less”-risky/non-breaking commits which currently would >>> only >>>>> end up in a 2.0 or 2.1 release. (Off the top of my head, immediately >> bad >>>>> candidates for this build would be for changes to components such as >>>>> gossip, streaming, or any patch that changes the storage format etc). >>> This >>>>> would enable the project to provide builds for more >> active/risk-adverse >>>>> users looking for a reasonable way to get more features and changes >> into >>>>> production than with today’s release cycle. Additionally, this would >>>>> hopefully facilitate/increase quicker feedback to the project on a >>> subset >>>>> of the new major release branch and any bugs found could be reported >>>>> against an actual reproducible release instead of some custom build >>> with a >>>>> given number of patches from Jira or git SHAs applied/backported. >>>>> >>>>> As it will always take both time and n releases to reach a stable >> minor >>>>> release for a new major train; users could deploy this new release to >>> get a >>>>> subset of new features and changes with higher risk than would >>> otherwise go >>>>> into a minor release of the previous stable release train. If >>> internally we >>>>> wanted to add a new feature we could target this release while testing >>>>> internally, and hopefully given the smaller delta between this >>>>> “interim/experimental” to make it easier to re-base patches into the >>> next >>>>> major release train. This would help us avoid what today has >>> unfortunately >>>>> become a unavoidable large lag in getting new C* builds into >> production >>> as >>>>> while we attempt to sync our internal releases with a internally/or >>>>> community QA’ed/accepted build/release of the current “stable” >>> build/branch >>>>> (currently this is 2.0). >>>>> >>>>> To accomplish this, the commit workflow would unfortunately need >> change >>>>> where an additional process is added to determine “eligibility” or >>>>> “appropriateness” of a given commit to additionally also be committed >> to >>>>> the “experimental” build branch (maybe it’s as simple as leaving it up >>> to >>>>> the reviewer + author to determine the risk factor and difficulty in >>>>> merging the change back into the “experimental” build?). If it is >> agreed >>>>> the commit/change/patch is a good candidate for the “experimental” >>> branch, >>>>> in addition to committing the patch to the current major release >> branch, >>>>> the commit would also be merged into the new “experimental” release. >> If >>>>> commits make it into the “experimental” branch frequently, I would >>>>> expect/hope merging patches into the “experimental” build would be >>>>> relatively easy as the “experimental” branch should also have most of >>> the >>>>> changes from the major release branch sans those considered highly >>> risky or >>>>> breaking. Additionally, if internally we want to work on a new feature >>> and >>>>> test internally before submitting a patch, we could target our code >>> against >>>>> the “experimental” branch, allowing us to test our changes in >> production >>>>> without forking C* internally, writing our code against more recent >>>>> “modern” changes, and then hopefully getting that work back to the >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hope this was clear enough and accurately summarizes the conversation >> a >>>>> few of us had! Looking forward to everyone’s feedback and comments. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> kjellman >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://twitter.com/tjake >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://twitter.com/tjake >>
