Hi Xuefu,
I disagree with "all those work would be wasted/useless", it would just
take effect 3 months later.
Regarding "I don't see eye to eye on how and when we had decided a
feature freeze", there was an official [ANNOUNCE] email that targeted
June 28 [1]. I think nobody is super strict about such a date and an
additional day or two but we need to stop merging into a branch to
ensure build stability.
The Flink community decided on time-based releases some time ago, of
course we could discuss this policy again. But generally speaking we
should release quickly because every release contains nice features that
users are waiting for. The PR in question was not listed in the intial
feature discussion [2] and mentioned for the first time mid/end of June.
Personally, for the next release, I would prefer to vote on a list of
FLIP topics that qualify for a release (given that they are finished in
time with the expected quality).
What do you think?
Thanks,
Timo
[1]
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/ANNOUNCE-Feature-freeze-for-Apache-Flink-1-9-0-release-tp29751.html
[2]
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Features-for-Apache-Flink-1-9-0-td28701.html
Am 08.08.19 um 15:43 schrieb Xuefu Z:
Hi all,
I understand the merged PR is a feature, but it's something we had planned
and requested for a long time. In fact, at Hive connector side, we have
done a lot of work (supporting hive udf). Without this PR, all those work
would be wasted and Hive feature itself in 1.9 would also be close to being
useless.
I also agree that feature freeze means something and has its importance. On
the other hand, I don't see eye to eye on how and when we had decided a
feature freeze should be in place. To me, our feature freeze seems to be
time based. That is, we determine a time by which feature freeze will
happen, irregardless original feature plan. As a result, this practice
incurs a great deal of randomness, leaving many planned feature half baked.
The question is really about how we balance releasing something in time
vs releasing something usable. This might be a great chance for us to
meditate on this topic.
The PR in question is requested by me, and its importance to Hive connector
makes me stand by my request. On the other hand, if the PR has anything to
improve, I'm all for it.
Thanks,
Xuefu
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:59 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Kurt,
I posted my opinion around this particular example in FLINK-13225.
Regarding the definition of "feature freeze": I think it is good to
write down more of the implicit processes that we had in the past. The
bylaws, coding guidelines, and a better FLIP process are very good steps
towards the right direction. However, not everything can be written down
and formulized. We should also remind ourselves of basic software
engineering principles. Merging a feature shortly before the actual
release is always dangerous. A feature needs time to settle down and be
tested for side-effects etc. Merging a feature with a lot of spaghetti
code, reflection magic, and a single IT case is not a complete feature
that is worth merging.
I hope we can improve here for the next release. Thanks for the open
discussion.
Regards,
Timo
Am 08.08.19 um 11:11 schrieb Kurt Young:
Hi Stephan,
Thanks for bringing this up. I think it's important and a good time to
discuss what
does *feature freeze* really means. At least to me, seems I have some
misunderstandings with this comparing to other community members. But as
you
pointed out in the jira and also in this mail, I think your understanding
makes sense
to me.
Maybe we can have a conclusion in the thread and put this into the
project
bylaws
which are under discussion?
Regarding to FLINK-13225, I would like to hear other's opinion since I
merged it. But
I would like to revert it if someone voted for reverting it.
Sorry for the inconvenience I caused.
Best,
Kurt
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:46 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi all!
I would like to bring this topic up, because we saw quite a few "secret"
post-feature-freeze feature merges.
The latest example was
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13225
I would like to make sure that we are all on the same page on what a
feature freeze means and how to handle possible additions after the
feature
freeze.
My understanding was the following, and I assume that this was also the
understanding of the community when we started establishing the release
practice:
- Feature freeze is the date until new features can be merged.
- After the feature freeze, we only merge bug fixes, release relevant
tests (end to end tests), and documentation.
- Features should already be stable and have tests. It is not okay to
"get a foot in the door" before feature freeze by merging something
that is
not ready (as a placeholder) and then fixing it post feature freeze.
- Extending functionality to new components is not a bug fix, it is a
feature.
- If someone wants to add a minor feature after the feature freeze,
and
there is a good reason for that, it should be explicitly discussed. If
there is no objection, it can be merged.
Please let me know if you have a different understanding of what feature
freeze means.
Regarding the issue of FLINK-13225
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13225>?
- Should we keep it?
- Should we revert it in the release-1.9 branch and only keep it for
master?
Best,
Stephan
