That PR adds a new feature that is currently forward-incompatible in behavior with 1.10.0 and 1.10.1. New features are supposed to go into the next release, not patched into a bugfix on a release line that is intended to be stable long term.
While our semver and LTM guidelines are just guidelines, and we can break them when we want/need to, I think the project is better served if that were rare. Every time we stretch/break those guidelines, we normalize violating them, and the resulting reduced confidence in our software's stability can create a feedback loop where the instability creates upgrade aversion, and the upgrade aversion increases the demand for backporting features. That's not sustainable, and it creates an unnecessary burden on the development side of things. I think having boundaries that resist against backporting features to stable branches creates a healthier relationship between the devs and the users. At this point, I'm a "soft" (not yet a veto) -1 to including that in 1.10. I could be convinced if it were A) 100% forward compatible with 1.10.0/1.10.1 *and* either B) there was greater consensus for it among the PMC or C) a good argument was made to justify adding the feature to a patch release [A&(B|C)]. As for the schedule, I was thinking about creating a release candidate on Monday if there weren't any issues. On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:56 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to try and include https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2221. > A > little more testing needs to be done, do you have a schedule for the 1.10.2 > release? > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 1:55 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I'm interested in putting together a 1.10.2 release with the changes in > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2458 so that the 1.10 line no > > longer requires log4j1, which has several vulnerabilities. Reload4j was > > created as a fork from log4j1 from Apache by its original author in order > > to provide a transition away from the CVE-riddled log4j1 jars. > > > > I'm sure we have a couple of other small bugfixes and improvements in > 1.10 > > that could benefit from being released as well. > > > > If there are any objections or last-minute tweaks that should be included > > in 1.10.2, please discuss here. > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher > > >
