> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Jason Lowe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think this gets back to the "if it's worth committing" part.
This brings us back to my original question:
"Doesn't this place an undue burden on the contributor with the first
incompatible patch to prove worthiness? What happens if it is decided that
it's not good enough?"
The answer, if I understand your position, is then at least a maybe
leaning towards yes: a patch that prior to this branching policy change that
would have gone in without any notice now has a higher burden (i.e., major
feature) to prove worthiness ... and in the process eliminates a whole class of
contributors and empowers others. Thus my concern ...
> As you mentioned, people are already breaking compatibility left and right as
> it is, which is why I wondered if it was really any better in practice.
> Personally I'd rather find out about a major breakage sooner than later,
> since if trunk remains an active area of development at all times it's more
> likely the community will sit up and take notice when something crazy goes
> in. In the past, trunk was not really an actively deployed area for over 5
> years, and all sorts of stuff went in without people really being aware of it.
Given the general acknowledgement that the compatibility guidelines are
mostly useless in reality, maybe the answer is really that we're doing releases
all wrong. Would it necessarily be a bad thing if we moved to a model where
incompatible changes gradually released instead of one big one every seven?
Yes, I lived through the "walking on glass" days at Yahoo! and realize
what I'm saying. But I also think the rate of incompatible changes has slowed
tremendously. Entire groups of APIs aren't getting tossed out every week
anymore.
> It sounds like we agree on that part but disagree on the specifics of how to
> help trunk remain active.
Yup, and there is nothing wrong with that. ;)
> Given that historically trunk has languished for years I was hoping this
> proposal would help reduce the likelihood of it happening again. If we
> eventually decide that cutting branch-3 now makes more sense then I'll do
> what I can to make that work well, but it would be good to see concrete
> proposals on how to avoid the problems we had with it over the last 6 years.
Yup, agree. But proposals rarely seem to get much actual traction.
(It's kind of fun reading the Hadoop bylaws and compatibility guidelines and
old [VOTE] threads to realize how much stuff doesn't actually happen despite
everyone generally agree that abc is a good idea.) To circle back a bit, I do
also agree that automation has a role to play....
Before anyone can accuse or imply me of being a hypocrite (and I'm
sure someone eventually will privately if not publicly), I'm sure some folks
don't realize I've been working on this set of problems from a different angle
for the past few years.
There are a handful of people that know I was going to attempt to do a
3.x release a few years ago. [Andrew basically beat me to it. :) ] But I ran
into the release process. What a mess. Way too much manual work, lots of
undocumented bits, violation of ASF rules(!) , etc, etc. We've all heard the
complaints.
My hypothesis: if the release process itself is easier, then getting a
release based on trunk is easier too. The more we automate, the more
non-vendors ("non traditional release managers"?) will be willing to roll
releases. The more people that feel comfortable rolling a release, the more
likelihood releases will happen. The more likelihood of releases happening,
the greater chance trunk had of getting out the door.
That turned into years worth of fixing and automating lots of stuff
that was continual complained about but never fixed: release notes,
changes.txt, chunks of the build process, chunks of the release tar ball
process, fixing consistency, etc. Some of that became a part of Yetus, some of
it didn't. Some of that work leaked into branch-2 at some point. Many probably
don't know why this stuff was happening. Then there were the people that
claimed I was "wasting my time" and that I should be focusing on "more
important" things. (Press release features, I'm assuming.)
So, yes, I'd like to see proposals, but I'd also like to challenge the
community at large to spend more time on these build processes. There's a
tremendous amount of cruft and our usage of maven is still nearly primordial in
implementation. (Shout out to Marton Elek who has some great although ambitious
ideas.)
Also kudos to Andrew for putting create-release and a lot of my other
changes through their paces in the early days. When he publicly stepped up to
do the release, I don't know if he realized what he was walking into...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
