Hey Stephen, I'm not totally against having a feature branch, but we had a bad experience with the Sentry HA re-design where all the work was done in a feature branch. After doing so many fixes and improvements in that sentry-ha branch, it was difficult to merge it into master, so we decided to replace master with the sentry-ha branch causing other fixes to be missed.
However, ABAC is not a small feature which could deserve a feature branch. We need to define how a feature branch should work, though, like: - Rebase often on the feature branch from master. This is to keep up with latest fixes and avoid code conflicts when attempting to merge the feature branch to master. - Avoid merging the feature branch into master as one single commit. If we can keep the history of commits from the feature branch in master, then it will help to track issues to specific commits done in master. I've seen projects where the feature branch disappeared and there was a big commit in master making difficult the debugging or backport of specific bugfixes and/or improvements. - Also be sure your patches specify the branch name so Jenkins do test the patch against the feature branch. And once those changes are merged into master, then all JIRAs that specify the branch name should be changed to have the version number of the master branch so we can keep track of which version they are part of. I think that would work for us. Regarding ABAC, is it clear how we're going to proceed with the feature? I think we should have a clear vision in the JIRA and/or the Google doc on how things are going to be integrated with Sentry. That will help us understand the patches and make sure we have a good integration with the project. Sergio On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Na Li <lina...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Stephen, > > I think it is OK for two features to be developed in parallel at master as > long as the new updates do not break existing features. > > If ABAC feature is not complete when we release sentry 2.1, can you turn > off ABAC in master branch, so it does not cause the release with incomplete > feature? > > Thanks, > > Lina > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Stephen Moist <mo...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Hey all, what does the current roadmap and release schedule look like for > > FGP and ABAC? I’ve been told that FGP is going out in the next release, > > ABAC is more slated for the summer. How do we want to handle > simultaneous > > development of these features? For ABAC, our dev process is more agile. > > So while we have a working version of ABAC right now in review, it’s not > > the final solution. We plan to iterate, improve, fix and add features to > > it over the next few months. I had talked with Kalyan and Sergio offline > > once, they don’t like large patches and recommended not using a feature > > branch. I don’t see an issue with continuing to develop ABAC and FGP at > > the same time and committing both to master. We’ll add a switch in ABAC > to > > turn the feature off for now through the next release. What does the > > community think about supporting development of two different features at > > once? >
