I think this situation is applicable times when we have more than one active branches (which is pretty likely always). 0.96 depends on the patches getting accepted to 0.98+, etc.
I think we can rely on the committers/RMs judgement on whether an issue is a bug or not and the implications. Unless a release candidate is about to be cut or something, I think it should be ok for committers to commit bug fixes to branches w/o an explicit +1 from the RMs. In that case, if a blocker is found for 0.98 RC, it should be ok to commit that to all active branches given that it is a bug fix. For improvements / risky patches, we can wait for the RM. One other thing we can do is that we can commit the patch to 0.98 if you +1, do the RC, but hold on for committing to 1.0. During the RC vote timeframe, we can then reach a consensus for whether the patch should go into both branches. Enis On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree just about everything related to HBASE-10856 is something that > merits discussion and consensus. > > > My main goal for branch-1 is to limit the exposure for unrelated changes > in the branch for a more stable release > > This is a goal shared by 0.98 so that's no issue at all. > > What we should sort out is coordinating RTC on multiple active branches. > For example, it's not possible for me to commit to rolling a 0.98 RC on a > particular day if we have a blocker that needs to go through 1.0 first, > since it is not clear for any given commit when or if it will be acked for > 1.0. > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Agreed that for every feature including security, we should be careful to > > not create a gap in terms of support (release x supporting, release x+1 > not > > supporting, release x+2 supporting etc). > > > > My main goal for branch-1 is to limit the exposure for unrelated changes > in > > the branch for a more stable release. If we think that we need to > > fix/improve some things for 1.0 and 0.98.x, it will be ok to commit. Some > > of the items linked under > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10856 > > imply big changes, but it would be ok to commit those to have a clear > > story. > > > > I think we can decide on a per-issue/feature basis. > > Enis > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Now that I think about it more, actually every commit, since I don't > > think > > > we want a situation where something goes into master and 0.98, but not > > 1.0. > > > We should discuss how to handle this. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm curious what will be the policy for security commits? I plan to > > take > > > > all security changes into 0.98. If we have commits to master and 0.98 > > > that > > > > will result in a serious feature / functionality discontinuity. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I've pushed the branch, named branch-1: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-1 > > > >> > > > >> Please do not commit new features to branch-1 without pinging the RM > > > (for > > > >> 1.0 it is me). Bug fixes, and trivial commits can always go in. > > > >> > > > >> That branch still has 0.99.0-SNAPSHOT as the version number, since > > next > > > >> expected release from that is 0.99.0. Jenkins build for this branch > is > > > >> setup at https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0/. It > builds > > > >> with > > > >> latest jdk7. I'll try to stabilize the unit tests for the first RC. > > > >> > > > >> I've changed the master version as well. It now builds with > > > >> 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT. > > > >> Exciting! > > > >> > > > >> Enis > > > >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
