Oh, I don't know. I may never be comfortable with a backport of MOB into branch-1, but a branch-2 including it would be fine.
And my point is not that making a branch-2 out of branch-1 is desirable, simply that it could be the most practical way forward if we are stuck on master with too much unfinished work that cannot be reverted in order to make a production ready release. On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see a point to have branch-2 from branch-1. For customer/users, we > always can have a 1.x release to give them all the features they want from > branch-1. > > My understand is that one of the difference of major release and minor > release is that major release could break some backward compatibility. If > any features that in master, but not in branch-1, as long as not breaking > backward compatible, the owner of the feature always can back-port to > branch-1 if they desire. Today we don't have voting process to block that. > > For 2.0 release or future major release, what we need is planning - THEME > (what is the biggest excitement for the release) and MUST-HAVE FEATURES. > All must-have features should have an owner and some estimate of completing > time. Once the consensus is reached, then next step is execution - the > release time would be based on progress of these must-have features. > > Thanks > Stephen > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Ashu Pachauri <ashu210...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > In my opinion, a major release is based on two simultaneous decisions: > > > > 1. Is it time; may be a year is a good time frame? (It's useless > > accumulating too much code that is not battle tested and then expect > people > > to deploy it to production without experiencing a plethora of issues.) > > > > 2. Is there at least one "major feature" that is complete ? > > > > I think if we can answer yes to both these questions at any point in > time, > > it's a good idea to cut the RC and ask people to start testing it. > > > > the only way forward for saving 2.0 at this point is to *make the branch > > and > > > spin the RC > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > The only way forward for saving 2.0 at this point is to *make the > branch > > > and spin the RC. *Just do it. Kick out by revert what obviously isn't > > > ready. Solicit help in getting partially finished things into working > > > state. Kick them out too if the help does not arrive. > > > > > > Maybe too much is in a half done state and the scale of effort for > those > > > reverts is too high. Fine. Renumber master as 3.0, and make a branch-2 > > from > > > branch-1 and backport a select number of things from master into the > new > > > branch-2. Then release. I do a variation of this for the $dayjob so > would > > > be your man to turn to for driving this if that's the way forward. > > > > > > I know it's easy to recommend the labor of others. Depending on what we > > are > > > going to do I can talk to work about freeing up time to help. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Phil Yang <yangzhe1...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So my suggestion is cutting branch-x faster and have some fixed > > period, > > > > for > > > > > example, six month or one year? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right Phil. > > > > > > > > The Release Managers for the minor releases have been doing a good > job > > > > keeping up a decent release cadence but we have an abysmal track > record > > > > when it comes to pushing out majors. First we were afraid to commit > -- > > > > witness how long it took us to get to a 1.0 -- and then pushing out > the > > > 1.0 > > > > took a monster effort. 2.0 looks to be a repeat of the errors of 1.0. > > My > > > > sense is that 2.0 is beyond saving at this stage. > > > > > > > > Can we do 3.0 different? As per your suggestion? > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > Ashu Pachauri > > > -- Best regards, - Andy If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond Teller (via Peter Watts)
