The release manager really should be deciding what makes the cut and what does not.
That is the origin of the tradition of allowing any committer to be a release manager. If somebody is unhappy about the content going into a release, they can roll another release that meets their particular release. Laurent is managing the 1.19 release and he should be managing it. On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:21 AM Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com> wrote: > I think you missed my point: > > - Not all bugs are equal and not all of them may cause to discard the > current evaluation of a release candidate. There are currently 1631 open > bugs for the project according to the Apache Drill JIRA: does it mean we > should wait for all those bugs to be fixed before we can release? What > makes this bug special compared to the others? > - Assuming the previous point is cleared and that the bug should indeed be > part of the release, it would be good to let the release manager handle it > or at least coordinate with them instead of doing it on your own. That's > usually what I've seen done in other projects and it seems to be a > reasonable thing to do as the release manager might be already deep in > patches merge and evaluation, and unexpected changes to the tree might > cause extra work which could have been avoided. Or just because that's the > respectful/polite thing to do... > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:11 PM luoc <l...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Laurent, > > Thanks for doing this. RC0 is no longer eligible for the next step > > operation. It is a consensus that we cannot release a version with known > > issues (the pull request mark as `bug`). In fact, Drill's release process > > is not friendly, and we will put these discussion after the release. Now > > our focus is on preparing for RC1. BTW, You're doing great. > > > > > 2021年6月4日 下午1:20，Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com> 写道： > > > > > > You actually went ahead and merged those patches without waiting while > I > > > was hoping we could get some consensus first :( > > > > > > Can I just ask you to please respect the effort I'm putting in > following > > > what I think is the release process? If people think I'm not following > > the > > > proper steps or that I'm not doing a good job at doing it, I'll gladly > > > accept feedback and will do my best to address it, but going over me > > isn't > > > helping me or the future volunteers for the next releases which might > be > > > also wondering what's the release process should be. > > > Meanwhile I'll wait to get a review for the DRILL-7945 patch fixing the > > > Guava regression, and hopefully I should be able to do another release > > > candidate tomorrow. > > > > > > Laurent > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:46 PM luoc <l...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> The DRILL-7945 blocked the release. So, I'm ready to merge the > > DRILL-7937 > > >> and DRILL-7940 for bugfix. > > >> > > >>> 在 2021年6月4日，01:15，Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com> 写道： > > >>> > > >>> Hey guys, > > >>> > > >>> Can we please stop changing the goal post again and again? The fact > > that > > >>> some of those pull requests are ready to merge should not be the sole > > >>> consideration when to do a next release candidate. > > >>> > > >>> I've been asking several times on this mailing list about what we > want > > to > > >>> include or not, and we got an agreement several times about it, and > > >> several > > >>> times we are now having this conversation. > > >>> IMHO, I would not include DRILL-7941, DRILL-7942 and DRILL-7943: > those > > >> are > > >>> new enhancements impacting Drill tests (not even the main product) > and > > I > > >> do > > >>> not understand the rush in making them part of the release. > > Specifically > > >>> for the JUnit 5 update, I think the change is misleading because it > > looks > > >>> like it's only the introduction of JUnit5 in one test class and > > >> everything > > >>> else still uses JUnit 4, so I would hardly call it an upgrade... > > >>> > > >>> As for DRILL-7937 and DRILL-7940, the issues were open in the last 3 > > days > > >>> ago, but they do not seem to be regressions since 1.18.0, just gaps > in > > >> what > > >>> Drill provides. Personally since we are this deep in the release, I > > would > > >>> also skip these one too. But if people have more contexts on those, > > maybe > > >>> we can agree they should be merged? > > >>> > > >>> Laurent > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:10 AM Charles Givre <cgi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> There are like 5 minor PRs that are approved and awaiting merge. > I'd > > >> vote > > >>>> that we include them. Specifically: > > >>>> > > >>>> DRILL-7943: Update Hamcrest > > >>>> DRILL-7942: Update Mockito > > >>>> DRILL-7941: Update junit to 5.7.2 > > >>>> DRILL-7937: Parquet decimal error > > >>>> DRILL-7940: Fix Kafka Key > > >>>> > > >>>> These are all approved and can be merged. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- C > > >>>> > > >>>>>> On Jun 3, 2021, at 9:01 AM, luoc <l...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> DRILL-7940, too > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 在 2021年6月3日，19:57，Charles Givre <cgi...@gmail.com> 写道： > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -1 (Binding) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'd agree with Nick. Drill-7937 should be included in this > release. > > >>>>>> -- C > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Nick Stenroos-Dam <n...@project.bi> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Vote -1 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Can we please include DRILL-7937 > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
