I'm just done with backporting 4 issues to 0.10.x-branch. - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
2015-08-04 10:29 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>: > Good catch on storm-903. > > I'll take a closer look. > > -Taylor > > > On Aug 3, 2015, at 7:25 PM, 임정택 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks all. > > > > I also think that it is really painful to backport something. That's why > I > > asked about what version lines we'll consider from other thread. > > Seems like we're sure about releasing official version of 0.10.0 and > > phasing out 0.9.x lines. > > I'll backport bugfixes to only 0.10.x-branch and let you know when I > > finished. > > > > Before start releasing 0.10.0, we may take a look at STORM-903 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-903>, which seems to be not > > finished. > > > > Thanks, > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > 2015-08-04 5:36 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>: > > > >> Thanks for putting together this list Jungtaek. > >> > >> Back-porting is a pain, and the more the 0.9.x, 0.10.x and master lines > >> diverge, the harder it gets. > >> > >> I propose we back-port the 4 fixes you identified for the 0.10 branch, > and > >> start discussing releasing 0.10.0 (final, not beta). > >> > >> Once 0.10.0 is out, I think we can start phasing out the 0.9.x line. The > >> idea was to continue to support 0.9.x while 0.10.0 stabilized and allow > >> early upgraders had a chance to kick the tires and report any glaring > >> issues. IMO more than enough time has passed and we should move forward > >> with a 0.10.0 release. > >> > >> In terms of the who and when of back porting, the general principle I’ve > >> followed is that once a patch has been merged, it is a candidate for > >> back-porting, and that any committer can do that since the patch had > >> already been reviewed and accepted. I don’t think a separate pull > request > >> is necessary. In fact, I think extra pull requests for back-porting > makes > >> JIRA/Github issues a little messy and confusing. > >> > >> IMO the only time we need back-port pull requests is: > >> > >> a) A non-committer contributor is requesting a patch be applied to an > >> earlier version. > >> b) A committer back-ported a patch with a lot of conflicts, and feels it > >> warrants further review before committing. Basically a way of saying > “This > >> merge was messy. Could others check my work?” > >> > >> If things go wrong at any time, there’s always “git revert”. > >> > >> I don’t think we need to codify any of this in our BYLAWS unless there > is > >> some sort of conflict, which for now there isn’t. If we feel the need to > >> document the process I feel documenting it README/wiki entry should > >> suffice. I’m more in favor of mutual trust among committers than hard > and > >> fast rules. Once a particular practice gets formalized in our bylaws, it > >> can be very difficult to change. > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Derek Dagit <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dealing with branches is a pain, and it is good we are paying attention > >> to > >>> back-porting. It is good to bring it up for discussion, and I agree > >> checking > >>> with those who do releases is a reasonable thing to do. > >>> > >>> I do not think there are special restrictions on back-porting fixes to > >> previous > >>> branches. I would be comfortable with the normal rules for a pull > >> request. > >>> > >>> Effort is one cost, and we could eventually run into some more > >> challenging > >>> merge conflicts as well. There are multiple things to consider, and I > >> think it > >>> is a judgment call. > >>> > >>> On the other hand, if it does become clear that clarifying principles > >> helpful > >>> in our BYLAWS, then I am all for it. If we commit to supporting > specific > >>> branches with certain kinds of fixes, then we need to stick to such a > >>> commitment. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Derek > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Parth Brahmbhatt <[email protected]> > >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: > >>> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:26 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x) > >>> > >>> Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug > fixes > >>> and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be > a > >>> huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best > >>> solution for now. > >>> > >>> I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will > >>> probably have to do release for each version where back porting was > done > >>> it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I > >> agree > >>> having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Parth > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this? > >>>> > >>>> I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and > >> 0.9.x > >>>> lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way. > >>>> Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only > >> thing > >>>> I > >>>> know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper. > >>>> > >>>> Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor > >>>> before doing back-port. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <[email protected]>: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or > >>>>> 0.10.x-branch. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot > of > >>>>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch > >>>>> before > >>>>> releasing 0.9.6. > >>>>> > >>>>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be > >> backported, > >>>>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions > it > >>>>> can > >>>>> be applied) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq > >>>>> 9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents. > >>>>> > >>>>> There seems to be other approach: > >>>>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so > >>>>> that > >>>>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative > >>>>> approach may be make sense. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >>>>> > >>>>> to. Taylor > >>>>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each > >>>>> issue) > >>>>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Name : 임 정택 > >>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net > >>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior > >>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Name : 임 정택 > > Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net > > Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior > > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior > -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
