In the end it just means the RMs (of all versions) need to agree. At the same time we need to keep the Apache consensus approach. The RM of version X cannot force a fix into all versions > X (to avoid discontinuities), at the same time the RM of version Y cannot indiscriminately block fixes to earlier version just because he/she does not want those.
-- Lars ________________________________ From: lars hofhansl <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Branching for 1.0 I agree completely. Unless a fix is specifically fixes an issue that only occurs in version X it must be in all versions Y > X. If we don't do that we *will* lose track in delayed, asynchronous fixes, also we cannot close the jira, and hence need to create forward port jiras. I'd go as far as saying that every forward port jira would need to be explained. IMHO this in independent of any RC considerations. The RC voting is happening on an immutable tag. The RCs of different versions do not need to be sync'ed (i.e. a fix could be in a later RC in version Y, that's up to the RM), only branches need to be sync'ed. As usual.. Just my $0.02. -- Lars ________________________________ From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Branching for 1.0 I think as 0.98 RM if the consensus is no it shouldn't go into 1.0 I'd have to cancel the pending 0.98 RC and revert the change. If we take too long to reach consensus about 1.0 and the 0.98 RC vote carries, that would force inclusion into 1.0. Interesting possibilities. But we do have two separate branches and two separate release trains - at least - so we'll have to figure it out. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > It would be a shame to loose track of patches because of this additional > administrative step happening asynchronously from initial push of the > commit. > > 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) > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
