On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Kaushal M <kshlms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm in favour of a stable release every 2 months and an LTS once a > year (option 2). > +1 > > As Oleksander already suggested, I'm in favour of having well defined > merge windows, freeze dates and testing period. > (A slightly modified timeline from Oleksander's proposal follows) > For every 2 month window, > - 1 month of development (merge window). New features will not be > accepted post this period. > - At the end of the development period a release-candidate 1 is tagged. > - A 1 month testing/bug-fixing window follows. This time is for > testing and fixing bugs found. > Feature development and reviews can happen during this period on > gerrit, but nothing gets merged. Merges will be held till the next > merge window. > This means the branching is not done at the end of merge window and the patches will not be merged even on the master branch. Is that right? - At least 2 more release-candidates will be release once every fortnight > - The final release-candidate becomes the release if it passes all our > tests. > > One of the 6 releases of the year will become a LTS release. > The 2 month window for this release will mainly be targeted at making > the release stable. > New features should be minimal for this release. > I really like this point. Taking 3.8 as a LTS release this would mean new features for 3.14 release would not be encouraged. > > During every 2 month window, the LTS release will get any required bug > fixes and stability improvements backported. > For fix to be backported it needs to be present in a stable release. > +1 > > ~kaushal > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukh...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > A bit late but better than never. My vote is for option 2. > > > > ~Atin > > > > On 05/18/2016 07:19 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > >> [Adding gluster-users] > >> > >> I would like to wrap this poll by the next community meeting on 25th > >> May. Can you please weigh in with your opinions on the options > >> provided by Aravinda? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Vijay > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Aravinda <avish...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Based on the discussion in last community meeting and previous > discussions, > >>> > >>> 1. Too frequent releases are difficult to manage.(without dedicated > release > >>> manager) > >>> 2. Users wants to see features early for testing or POC. > >>> 3. Backporting patches to more than two release branches is pain > >>> > >>> Enclosed visualizations to understand existing release and support > cycle and > >>> proposed alternatives. > >>> > >>> - Each grid interval is 6 months > >>> - Green rectangle shows supported release or LTS > >>> - Black dots are minor releases till it is supported(once a month) > >>> - Orange rectangle is non LTS release with minor releases(Support ends > when > >>> next version released) > >>> > >>> Enclosed following images > >>> 1. Existing Release cycle and support plan(6 months release cycle, 3 > >>> releases supported all the time) > >>> 2. Proposed alternative 1 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable > release > >>> once in every 2 months > >>> 3. Proposed alternative 2 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable > release > >>> once in every 3 months > >>> 4. Proposed alternative 3 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable > release > >>> once in every 4 months > >>> 5. Proposed alternative 4 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable > release > >>> once in every 6 months (Similar to existing but only alternate one will > >>> become LTS) > >>> > >>> Please do vote for the proposed alternatives about release intervals > and LTS > >>> releases. You can also vote for the existing plan. > >>> > >>> Do let me know if I missed anything. > >>> > >>> regards > >>> Aravinda > >>> > >>> On 05/11/2016 12:01 AM, Aravinda wrote: > >>> > >>> I couldn't find any solution for the backward incompatible changes. As > you > >>> mentioned this model will not work for LTS. > >>> > >>> How about adopting this only for non LTS releases? We will not have > backward > >>> incompatibility problem since we need not release minor updates to non > LTS > >>> releases. > >>> > >>> regards > >>> Aravinda > >>> > >>> On 05/05/2016 04:46 PM, Aravinda wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> regards > >>> Aravinda > >>> > >>> On 05/05/2016 03:54 PM, Kaushal M wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aravinda <avish...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sharing an idea to manage multiple releases without maintaining > >>> multiple release branches and backports. > >>> > >>> This idea is heavily inspired by the Rust release model(you may feel > >>> exactly same except the LTS part). I think Chrome/Firefox also follows > >>> the same model. > >>> > >>> http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html > >>> > >>> Feature Flag: > >>> -------------- > >>> Compile time variable to prevent compiling featurerelated code when > >>> disabled. (For example, ./configure--disable-geo-replication > >>> or ./configure --disable-xml etc) > >>> > >>> Plan > >>> ----- > >>> - Nightly build with all the features enabled(./build --nightly) > >>> > >>> - All new patches will land in Master, if the patch belongs to a > >>> existing feature then it should be written behind that feature flag. > >>> > >>> - If a feature is still work in progress then it will be only enabled > in > >>> nightly build and not enabled in beta or stable builds. > >>> Once the maintainer thinks the feature is ready for testing then > that > >>> feature will be enabled in beta build. > >>> > >>> - Every 6 weeks, beta branch will be created by enabling all the > >>> features which maintainers thinks it is stable and previous beta > >>> branch will be promoted as stable. > >>> All the previous beta features will be enabled in stable unless it > >>> is marked as unstable during beta testing. > >>> > >>> - LTS builds are same as stable builds but without enabling all the > >>> features. If we decide last stable build will become LTS release, > >>> then the feature list from last stable build will be saved as > >>> `features-release-<NUM>.yaml`, For example: > >>> features-release-3.9.yaml` > >>> Same feature list will be used while building minor releases for the > >>> LTS. For example, `./build --stable --features > features-release-3.8.yaml` > >>> > >>> - Three branches, nightly/master, testing/beta, stable > >>> > >>> To summarize, > >>> - One stable release once in 6 weeks > >>> - One Beta release once in 6 weeks > >>> - Nightly builds every day > >>> - LTS release once in 6 months or 1 year, Minor releases once in 6 > weeks. > >>> > >>> Advantageous: > >>> ------------- > >>> 1. No more backports required to different release branches.(only > >>> exceptional backports, discussed below) > >>> 2. Non feature Bugfix will never get missed in releases. > >>> 3. Release process can be automated. > >>> 4. Bugzilla process can be simplified. > >>> > >>> Challenges: > >>> ------------ > >>> 1. Enforcing Feature flag for every patch > >>> 2. Tests also should be behind feature flag > >>> 3. New release process > >>> > >>> Backports, Bug Fixes and Features: > >>> ---------------------------------- > >>> - Release bug fix - Patch only to Master, which will be available in > >>> next beta/stable build. > >>> - Urgent bug fix - Patch to Master and Backport to beta and stable > >>> branch, and early release stable and beta build. > >>> - Beta bug fix - Patch to Master and Backport to Beta branch if urgent. > >>> - Security fix - Patch to Master, Beta and last stable branch and build > >>> all LTS releases. > >>> - Features - Patch only to Master, which will be available in > >>> stable/beta builds once feature becomes stable. > >>> > >>> FAQs: > >>> ----- > >>> - Can a feature development take more than one release cycle(6 weeks)? > >>> Yes, the feature will be enabled only in nightly build and not in > >>> beta/stable builds. Once the feature is complete mark it as > >>> stable so that it will be included in next beta build and stable > >>> build. > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Do you like the idea? Let me know what you guys think. > >>> > >>> This reduces the number of versions that we need to maintain, which I > like. > >>> Having official test (beta) releases should help get features out to > >>> testers hand faster, > >>> and get quicker feedback. > >>> > >>> One thing that's still not quite clear to is the issue of backwards > >>> compatibility. > >>> I'm still thinking it thorough and don't have a proper answer to this > yet. > >>> Would a new release be backwards compatible with the previous release? > >>> Should we be maintaining compatibility with LTS releases with the > >>> latest release? > >>> > >>> Each LTS release will have seperate list of features to be enabled. If > we > >>> make any breaking changes(which are not backward compatible) then it > will > >>> affect LTS releases as you mentioned. But we should not break > compatibility > >>> unless it is major version change like 4.0. I have to workout how we > can > >>> handle backward incompatible changes. > >>> > >>> With our current strategy, we at least have a long term release branch, > >>> so we get some guarantees of compatibility with releases on the same > branch. > >>> > >>> As I understand the proposed approach, we'd be replacing a stable > >>> branch with the beta branch. > >>> So we don't have a long-term release branch (apart from LTS). > >>> > >>> Stable branch is common for LTS releases also. Builds will be different > >>> using different list of features. > >>> > >>> Below example shows stable release once in 6 weeks, and two LTS > releases in > >>> 6 months gap(3.8 and 3.12) > >>> > >>> LTS 1 : 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4 3.8.5... > >>> LTS 2 : 3.12 3.12.1... > >>> Stable: 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13... > >>> > >>> A user would be upgrading from one branch to another for every release. > >>> Can we sketch out how compatibility would work in this case? > >>> > >>> User will not upgrade from one branch to other branch, If user > interested in > >>> stable channel then upgrade once in 6 weeks. (Same as minor update in > >>> current release style) > >>> > >>> > >>> This approach work well for projects like Chromium and Firefox, single > >>> system apps > >>> which generally don't need to be compatible with the previous > release. > >>> I don't understand how the Rust project uses this (I am yet to read > >>> the linked blog post), > >>> as it requires some sort of backwards compatibility. But it too is a > >>> single system app, > >>> and doesn't have the compatibility problems we face. > >>> > >>> Gluster is a distributed system, that can involve multiple different > >>> versions interacting with each other. > >>> This is something we need to think about. > >>> > >>> I need to think about compatibility, What new problems about the > >>> compatibility with this approach compared to our existing release plan? > >>> > >>> > >>> We could work out some sort of a solution for this though. > >>> It might be something very obvious I'm missing right now. > >>> > >>> ~kaushal > >>> > >>> -- > >>> regards > >>> Aravinda > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gluster-devel mailing list > >>> Gluster-devel@gluster.org > >>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gluster-devel mailing list > >>> Gluster-devel@gluster.org > >>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gluster-users mailing list > >> gluster-us...@gluster.org > >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel