[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12484665
]
James P. White commented on HADOOP-1161:
----------------------------------------
>> I do not like the idea of applying the same patch more than one place (i.e
>> trunk and a branch etc.) -
>> merging handles this nicely, provided we maintain a bit of discipline.
>
>Merging is fine, but it means you have to commit in one place and then start
>the next. If there is a conflict, it would be nice to know >before you commit
>it.
>
>In my experience, it works much better to merge changes from the stable branch
>up into the head. The problem with merging down is
>that you can have accidental leakage of new features into the stable branch.
Merging is bad for just that reason. Patches to release branches should be
applied one-at-a-time by the release maintainer. Fixes/features to the trunk
occur willy-nilly in comparison to the care that must be exercised on a release
branch for a stable product.
With simple changes that have no conflict, the branch maintainer simply applies
the patch. Where the change is more extensive, then more work must be done.
But it certainly makes no sense for such a complex change to be made to the
release branch until that big of a change is fully vetted in the trunk. If
someone knows in advance they're making a big change that will result in
conflicts (that is the trunk of the affected files has already diverged greatly
from the release and the big change is going to go into the release - which
doesn't really make sense since release branch changes should usually just be
bug fixes), the change should be made on it's own branch from the point of
divergence.
The double maintenance is unavoidable because the changes are made by people in
very different roles ("feature developer" vs. "release maintainer"). The
difference is hard to see in a smallish project where the same person is doing
both jobs, but is important in the context of this issue ("improved release
process").
> need improved release process
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-1161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 0.13.0
>
>
> Hadoop's release process needs improvement. We should better ensure that
> releases are stable, not releasing versions that have not been proven stable
> on large clusters, and we should better observe Apache's release procedures.
> Once agreed on, this process should be documented in
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-hadoop/HowToRelease.
> Here's a proposal:
> . candidate release builds should be placed in
> lucene.apache.org/hadoop/dev/dist
> . candidate artifacts should be accompanied by a md5 and pgp signatures
> . a 72-hour vote for the release artifact should be called on hadoop-dev.
> . 3 binding +1 votes and a majority are required
> . if the vote passes, the release can then posted to
> www.apache.org/dist/lucene/hadoop for mirroring
> This would bring us into accord with Apache's requirements, and better permit
> large-cluster validation.
> We should also build consensus for a release before we commence this process.
> Perhaps we should aim for releases every two months instead of every month.
> We should perhaps develop more elaborate branching and merging conventions
> around releases. Currently we mostly lock-out changes intended for release
> X+1 from trunk until release X is complete, which can be awkward. How can we
> better manage that?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
