yay consensus! I'll email user@ On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> +1 for EOL of 1.5 with the release of 1.5.3 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:18 PM > To: Accumulo Dev List > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5 > > So, at this point, I'm willing to do a 1.5.3 release and can start that > today. It seems we're in agreement we should at least do that. > Beyond that, I'm not really sure what the consensus is. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1.5 has already started to suffer in terms of landing every bug-fix > > there. I don't think it's intentional (I know I have done it though), > > but it's kind of a sign that the devs have already mentally move beyond > 1.5. > > > > I think JIRA is a clear sign that users aren't heavily using 1.5 (I > > can't think of more than a couple tickets marked as affects 1.5.x), > > but it would be nice to explicitly ask user@. > > > > A 1.5.3 to close things out would be nice -- can always be re-opened > > if someone wants to scratch that itch. > > > > > > Sean Busbey wrote: > >> > >> that change to development procedure will definitely impact them. > >> it'll mean folks no longer look for their bugs to impact the 1.5 > >> branch to start (unless things are critical). that basically > >> guarantees that the rate of > >> 1.5 releases will slow, which impacts ops planning for those on the > >> 1.5 line. > >> > >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> Feel free to include user@ sooner, if you wish. The reason I hadn't > >>> already was because my suggested route would only be a shift in > >>> development procedures, and wouldn't really change things from a > >>> user perspective. Alternatives to what I suggest may affect them > >>> more strongly. We definitely should CC them when we have a decision, > >>> though. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Sean Busbey<bus...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> oh! almost forgot. We should get user@accumulo into this > >>>> conversation sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if it's better > >>>> ot just copy them > >>> > >>> in > >>>> > >>>> to this thread or do it as a follow up once we have more of an idea > >>>> of > >>> > >>> what > >>>> > >>>> "EOL" means for them. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Sean Busbey<bus...@cloudera.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 to making sure we have a 1.5.3 before stop dev > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to make sure we get through some testing of 1.5 -> 1.7 > >>>>> upgrade testing before declaring dev over, just to give people > >>>>> more assurance > >>> > >>> that > >>>>> > >>>>> they can upgrade off of the version. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How do we want to EOL 1.5? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Personally, I was thinking (soon after 1.7.0 is released): > >>>>>> * Release and tag 1.5.3 > >>>>>> * Remove 1.5 branch to focus active development on newer versions > >>>>>> * Be willing to branch from the 1.5.3 tag to rapidly release a > >>>>>> 1.5.4 in response to critical bugs > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My biggest concerns are: > >>>>>> 1) We turn exhausted people off by doing burdensome release > >>>>>> testing, which delays bugfixes in 1.5, and > >>>>>> 2) We get into a situation where 1.5.3 has some bugs that we > >>>>>> never fix, which sends a confusing message to stick with 1.5.2. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There's also the concern that there's a fair amount of work that > >>>>>> was put into 1.5.3, and I'd hate to have those contributions not > >>>>>> be available to users of 1.5. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I figure that so long as we're willing to fix critical bugs, we > >>>>>> can formally cease active development (EOL), without going so far > >>>>>> as to say that 1.5 users are completely screwed if a critical bug > >>>>>> is identified. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I'm describing isn't really an EOL date, so much as an EOL > >>>>>> period which begins when we cease active development on 1.5, and > >>>>>> ends organically at some arbitrary point in the future when > >>>>>> people stop reporting critical bugs (or we reach a point where > >>>>>> maintaining it is too costly... a sort of "EOL-2"). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Another way to look at what I'm suggesting is switch from a > >>>>>> "sustained development" model to a "branch to fix and release" > >>>>>> model, where patch/bugfix releases are more narrowly scoped and > >>>>>> can occur more rapidly, on demand. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thoughts? Alternatives? Variations? Objections? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Sean > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sean > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- Sean
