On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Johan Edstrom <seij...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll step in here… > > Much of what Dan has done is in the corporate world very very much wanted. > Dan offered his time to keep on back porting fixing and non api breaking > features. >
Dan is not the only person doing this. We are already backporting to the 2.8 branch. Also after the 2.8.1 release. Well there were some API breakings in there, however on the small side as they face internally, but still. Some commits wasn't necessary to backport as they cases these minor/micro API changes. > That means we'll see (and we can debate that) "done in 2.9, available in > 2.8.5) > > I think Dan already said he should have said more of a "hey", debating if we > need this is > going to go in the insane bin, most customers I work with complain about the > lack of a > stable train that provides fixes with no upgrades…. > The 2.8.2 would have become more stable if there was not backported soo many changes. > /je > > On Sep 21, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Christian Müller wrote: > >> May I miss something, but at the moment it's not really clear for me WHAT >> should be backported. >> Do we backport EVERYTHING which doesn't break existing code (not only bugs)? >> Also new features and enhancements with the risk of introducing new bugs? >> Only to make it clear for me and may others... >> >> And by> Awesome! - thanks Dan >>> On 21 Sep 2011, at 15:23, Daniel Kulp wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:53:49 PM Rob Davies wrote: >>>>> For my part it is the principle - at some point this will go wrong - >> doing >>>>> what Chistian suggested makes a lot of sense. And, users in production >> want >>>>> stability, fixes are good, new features leads naturally to concern about >>>>> stability. It should be good practice to give a heads up at least, >> before >>>>> backporting new features. >>>> >>>> I agree that I should have given a better "hey, ton of stuff going to >> happen" >>>> heads up Monday morning (or Friday). >>>> >>>> That said, I had complete intention after 2.8.0 was released to try and >> port >>>> things back more on a weekly basis or so. That makes things a LOT easier >> to >>>> do. Reviewing 380+ commits in one day is really not fun. :-) I've just >>>> been quite a bit busy on other things that the Camel porting kept falling >> off >>>> the bottom of my weekly todo list. :-( >>>> >>>> Going forward, I'm hoping to keep being able to port fixes and such back >> on a >>>> semi-weekly basis (+/- a little bit) much like I do for CXF. Obviously, >> any >>>> help from anyone else would be greatly appreciated. In CXF, over time, >> I've >>>> gotten more help from Sergey and Willem and Freeman and others and I >> greatly >>>> appreciate their efforts. I've seen Claus and Jon and others pulling >> things >>>> back here as well which is definitely appreciated. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 21 Sep 2011, at 14:33, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>>>>> This is an emotional non-discussion. The question in the title is what >>>>>> is the reason for the *many* backports. An explanation was also given: >>>>>> if they are *many* bugs (or improvements), they should be fixed, and in >>>>>> dkulp's opinion not only on the trunk but also on the maintained >>>>>> branches. There is also an expectation for the fixes to be backwards >>>>>> compatible, which is absolutely normal. From what I see the expectation >>>>>> was fulfilled. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob seems to imply that he trusts Dan to do the right thing, but he's >>>>>> concerned about the precedent he sets for the less talented rest of us >>>>>> who might go wild and break things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did I get it right? Is there a particular commit that triggered this >>>>>> question, or is more the principle? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hadrian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/21/2011 01:36 AM, Rob Davies wrote: >>>>>>> Dan it admirable what you want to do but it would be better to >>>>>>> encourage collective best practice - so we do not break backward >>>>>>> compatibility on a released branch. That's why discussing adding new >>>>>>> features, or changes to dependencies on the DEV list first is a good >>>>>>> idea. it will set the pattern that others will follow. Its not that >>>>>>> we expect that you will break anything, but others might do by >>>>>>> accident.>> >>>>>>> On 21 Sep 2011, at 04:08, Daniel Kulp wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:20:20 PM Claus Ibsen wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Dan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you care to discuss this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep on backporting non bug fixes, new features and whatnot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People who run Camel in production and they may want to upgrade to >>>>>>>>> 2.8.2 due to a bug. >>>>>>>>> They frankly do not like a lot of changes. As any change in a >>>>>>>>> production system is not desireable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And there are even more people that are trying to move their >>>>>>>> applications from development into testing or production and cannot >>>>>>>> because they are hitting specific bugs or require some trivial >>>>>>>> features or issues to be resolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If a user reports a bug (and even better, provides a patch), we >>>>>>>> definitely owe it to them to get that fix pulled back relatively >>>>>>>> quickly. Camel has historically done a VERY poor job of doing >>>>>>>> that. I keep talking to people that have either had to fork Camel >>>>>>>> internally to get patches applied or go to a third party to demand >>>>>>>> various things ported back. In both cases, I just cringe as >>>>>>>> that shows that we, as a community, have failed our users. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Likewise, if a user needs a trivial change in order to get Camel >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> production, we should try and get that change to them WITHOUT a huge >>>>>>>> upgrade hassle. Things like new methods, new config options (as >>>>>>>> long as the defaults remain as before), etc... that would have no >>>>>>>> impact on existing users, but makes it possible to use Camel by a >>>>>>>> wider audience. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So the gap from 2.8.0, 2.8.1 to 2.8.2 is now very big. This is not >>>>>>>>> desireable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Compared to any CXF patch release, it's about average at this point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Claus Ibsen<claus.ib...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dan what is the reason why you backport so many commits to 2.8.2 >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> 2.9? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The "problem" is that its a lot of new features, non trivial bug >>>>>>>>>> fixes and whatnot. >>>>>>>>>> People then may not have a safe upgrade from 2.8.0 / 2.8.1 to >>>>>>>>>> 2.8.2 >>>>>>>>>> because of the "big difference". >>>>>>>>>> People is more prepared for a little trouble when doing 2.8.0 to >>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 upgrade. But not for an upgrade in 2.8.x branch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also for new features and whatnot we update the documentation to >>>>>>>>>> indicate eg *Camel 2.9* that >>>>>>>>>> this is a new feature in that version. These documentation >>>>>>>>>> changes is >>>>>>>>>> not part of the SVN and thus >>>>>>>>>> you lose this, and cannot keep the documentation<-> source code >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> sync. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yea. Docs are definitely an issue. I'll admit that. They don't >>>>>>>> really end up "wrong", but not 100% correct either. :-) If >>>>>>>> you consider a feature not "complete" until documented, and it's >>>>>>>> not documented until 2.9, then the docs are correct if they say >>>>>>>> 2.9. Yea, kind of a silly answer. Fixing the docs should >>>>>>>> definitely be done as well. I'll try and look a little at that in >>>>>>>> the next couple days. (and thanks Jon for the help!) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In anycase, I'm trying to provide a usable solution for our users. >>>>>>>> This processed has worked extremely well based on past experience. >>>>>>>> If there is a particular commit that I merged back that you are >>>>>>>> particularly concerned about, feel free to bring it up. We can >>>>>>>> work on finding a solution that would solve the problem in a way >>>>>>>> with less impact on the users. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Claus Ibsen >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> FuseSource >>>>>>>>>> Email: cib...@fusesource.com >>>>>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com >>>>>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews >>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp >>>>>>>> dk...@apache.org >>>>>>>> http://dankulp.com/blog >>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Kulp >>>> dk...@apache.org >>>> http://dankulp.com/blog >>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> > > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
