Hi Rod/Folks, On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:05 PM, < [email protected]> wrote:
> > As most of you know, we have been working on upgrading the entity manager > and some other core changes. This work has been taking place in the > two-dot-o branch. The good news is that the 2.0 system is much, much > faster than 1.0. Additionally, the use of ElasticSearch opens up a lot of > avenues for us in terms of adding new query grammar. > Great... with a _C_apital G. > > We are now ready to move this work into master. I am proposing that we > put the current master into a branch called one-dot-o, then move the > two-dot-o code into master. I would ask how close master branch is to a release? I would suggest that UG makes a release of whichever source code makes sense to keep building the community. If this is 2-dot-oh branch codebase then grand. If not then maybe the committers and PPMC should think about that. > Here are the pros and cons as I see them: > > Pros: > This will bring the existing work (and there is a lot of work happening) > to a more visible platform. It sure would, there is no doubt about this. > All changes will have to be brought in via PR and it will allow us to > scrutinize the code and work being done more carefully. It also validates > the 2.0 codebase as the primary focus of the project. > I brought up a couple of roadmap-type threads and heard no mention that 2.0 was the focus. I understand that this is implicit from a committer POV, however for someone not getting the commit emails this is absolutely not obvious. Does this make sense? I understand that folks have been beating the drum possibly at ApacheCon EU, and elsewhere etc. about 2-dot-oh and quite rightly so, so maybe I am not understanding that this is the message that is being communicated here. Would this be done via a PR? I would think probably what you are talking about here is as follows current master branch --> one-dot-oh two-dot-oh --> master This would not be a PR would it? > > Cons: > We don’t currently have an upgrade path from 1.0 to 2.0. Yeah, this is a bit of a problem and I have experienced it a number of times elsewhere. I've experienced fragmented communities and this can sometimes even make some codebase(s) stale. It can also have the positive effect where it engages minor compotition between codebases however I am not sure that UG has that type of community yet. > This is something that we intend to build but it may take some time to > accomplish (currently we are thinking it is about 2-3 months out, possibly > sooner). Very realistic and I am optimistic for this as well :) > It also could make doing additional releases more difficult (e.g. can we > release from a branch that isn’t master?) I would say that we can release from any branch we want, if this is agreed upon by the PPMC. However, we would need to change the way that UG contributions are merged in. Right now Jira tickets are not required for two-dot-oh, however tickets are supposedly lodged and tracked for 1.0.X. I would strongly advise that this is factored into any plan moving forward Rod. > We are ready to release 1.0.1 as we have had quite a few contributions, so > if we have to release from master, then this release needs to happen before > putting the 2.0 code in. > > Absolutely. I would think that releasing 1.0.1 (or to be honest 1.1) would be a more appropriate and less major step forward. One which the community could better consume and also shows that UG is ready to graduate from the Incubator. It also shows that UG is moving, is active and that a regular release of the codebase is happening. I don't know about you guys, but social media and industry events such as Cassandra Summit amongst many others have done wonders for the community. If we can keep sending positive messages like the ones we have been doing, backed by a 1-dot-oh release then we would be doing swell. To come full circle, it may be worth pausing for a second and for us to remember the process UG has been through and the progress which has been learned over the last while. We want to keep to these high standards and make sure that the two-dot-oh transition to master is made for the right reasons, by the PPMC for the community at large. Would be interesting to hear about the teaching classes which feature UG and whether or not the transition of the one-dot-oh codebase from master to somewhere else would affect the way that people teach UG to the masses. Thanks for reading and thank you for bringing this up. UG two-dot-oh is looking pretty amazing but I am out of touch with the codebase.
