If we rebase the feature branch on master on a regular basis does that address the git history concern? I realize we'll need to communicate quickly on the list when there are conflicts.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> wrote: > One aspect we should consider is git history - working on feature branch > tends to produce a complicated git tree with many merges instead of the > linear tree that we get by working on master directly. > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Na Li <lina...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Steve, > > > > I am OK for ABAC to be on feature branch if you make sure 1) pull latest > > master to your feature branch 2) Let us review your changes with all unit > > tests pass. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Lina > > > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Moist <mo...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > > I’m fine with putting everything into a feature branch for now. Right > > > now, the initial ABAC patch is a working solution. It’s not the final > > > solution that we plan to deliver. We could keep iterating on > > SENTRY-2201 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2201> and adding more > code > > > to a single patch and merge it back into master. I don’t think anyone > in > > > the community is going to want to review a 10mb patch. So, I think > going > > > forward, we will submit patches to an abac feature branch. We plan to > > keep > > > iterating and expanding on the code base. We want to always have a end > > to > > > end working solution at all time that our QA team can test. Once the > > > Sentry community feels that abac is stable, we can merge it into > master. > > > This way it 1) doesn’t impact Sentry 2.1 2) We don’t ship an incomplete > > > feature in 2.1 3)We can keep moving forward with development. > > > > > > With that said, I expect then the Sentry community (and more > specifically > > > Committers) to stay on top of the changes we’re making to this feature > > > branch. I don’t want everyone to ignore it for a few months and then > > start > > > re-reveiwing with it as we merge it back into master when we get to the > > end. > > > > > > Does this sound good to the community? > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Stephen, > > > > > > > > a lot depends on your plans in terms of breaking functionality. For > > > > example, one of the reasons Sentry HA was developed on a feature > branch > > > was > > > > because it was a serious change in architecture and in broke > > > functionality > > > > for a while. I think some of the merge problems which Sergio referred > > to > > > > were caused by poor planning and communication - I think we are in > much > > > > better shape now. > > > > > > > > One thing I would be concerned (in case you do your development in > > master > > > > branch) is that we end up shipping a release with half-baked feature > > > where > > > > there is a bunch of things that are there for the future but not > really > > > > used. If you think this isn't a really a problem, developing on > master > > is > > > > fine since it will automatically handle any potential conflicts with > > > > fine-grained privileges changes. > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:08 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? > > > > > > > > >
