Thanks Zhijie. Inline. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Zhijie Shen <zs...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> My 2 cents: > > Branch maintenance cost should be fine if we have few features to be > developed in branches. However, if there're too many, each other branch may > be blind to most of latest code change from others, and trunk/branch-2 > becomes stale. That said, with the increasing adopting of branch > development, it's likely to increase the cost of merging each branch back. > Addressing conflicts with other work on trunk/branch-2 is something we handle today as well. In case of development on branches, we essentially pay the cost at merge time instead of amortizing it on every commit. Folks could rebase more frequently (atleast at milestones) and try amortizing at rebase times? > > Some features may last more than one releases, such as RM restarting > before and timeline service now. Even if it's developed in a branch, we may > want to merge its milestones such as phase 1, phase 2 back to > trunk/branch-2 to align with some release before it's completely done. > Moreover, my experience is that the longer a feature stays in the branch, > the more conflicts we have to merge. Hence, it may not be a good idea to > hold a feature in the branch too long before merging it back. > For features that have multiple phases, where a phase could benefit from wider adoption and be included in a release, I think it is perfectly reasonable to merge a phase in. In case of RM restart, the non-preserving restart could have been merged first. > > Thanks, > Zhijie > ________________________________________ > From: Subramaniam V K <subru...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:16 PM > To: yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Developing features in branches > > Karthik, thanks for starting the thread. > > Here's my $0.02 based on the experience of working on a feature branch > while adding reservations (YARN-1051). > > Overall a +1 for the approach. > > The couple of pain points we faced were: > 1) Merge cost with trunk > 2) Lack of CI in the feature branch > > The migration to git & keeping the feature branch in continuous sync with > trunk mitigated (1) and with Allen's new test-patch.sh addressing (2), > branches for features especially if used for all major features seems like > an excellent choice. > > -Subru > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Sangjin Lee <sjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ah, I missed that part (obviously). Fantastic! > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 28, 2015 5:59 PM, "Sangjin Lee" <sjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That said, in a way we're deferring the cost of cleaning things up > > > towards > > > > the end of the branch. For example, we don't get the same treatment > of > > > the > > > > hadoop jenkins in a branch development. It's left up to the group or > > the > > > > individuals to make sure to run test-patch.sh to ensure tech debt > does > > > not > > > > accumulate. > > > > > > As Allen previously mentioned, the QA bot will run test-patch against > > > feature branches so long as you name the patch file correctly. > > > > > > -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. -------------------------------------------- http://five.sentenc.es
