HBasers, I would like to propose extending our informal "branch RM" concept just a bit to include the nonreleasing branches like branch-1, branch-2 (when it exists), and master. These branches are where all commits are made passing through down to the releasing branches targeted for the change (like, branch-1.1, branch-1.2, branch-1.3, etc.)
The releasing branches all have their own RM. I assume that RM is diligently monitoring its state, by way of review of commit history, occasional execution of the unit test suite, occasional execution of the integration tests, and has perhaps some automation in place to help with that on a nightly or weekly basis. No matter, let's assume there is a nonzero level of scrutiny applied to them, which leads to feedback to committers about inappropriate commits via compat guidelines, commits which have broken unit tests, or other indications of quality or functional concerns. I think it would improve our overall velocity as a project if we could also have volunteers tending the development branches upstream from the releasing branches. Less work would fall to the RMs tending the release branches if a common troublesome commit can be caught upstream first. In particular I am thinking about branch-1. I would like to volunteer to become the new RM for branch-1, to test and refine my above proposal in practice. Unless I hear objections I will assume by lazy consensus everyone is ok with this experiment. What this would mean: - JIRAs like "TestFooBar is broken on branch-1" will show up sooner, and more likely with fix patches - Semiregular performance reports on branch-1 code as of date X/Y/Z, can compare with earlier reports for trending - Occasional sweep through master history looking for appropriate candidates for backport to branch-1, execution of said backport - Occasional 1B row ITBLL torture tests, probably if failure with bisect back to commit that introduced instability What this does not mean: - The branch-1 RM will not attempt to tell other branch RMs what or what not to include in their release branches - The branch-1 RM won't commit anything backported from master to any of the release branches; it will continue to be up to the release branch RMs what they would or would not like to be included Also, I don't see why I couldn't spend some time looking at master now and then. I am going to assume our current co-RM team for branch-2 would maybe do something similar for branch-2, once it materializes. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -- Best regards, - Andy If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond Teller (via Peter Watts)
