We don't have frequent enough releases with 0.98?
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Users also deserve to get as few new surprises as possible. Being on the > supporting side of this, I've come to prefer preserving minor known issues > to having new unknown issues caused of small improvements. > > I prefer the conservative approach with "improvements", and prefer that > maint/point release just backport critical fixes, security fixes, testing > improvements (test only flakey fixups), recovery tooling (hbck updates), > and critical perf regression fixes. > > If not getting minors out fast enough is the main concern and motivator, > I'd argue backporting more doesn't help the problem -- that is energy that > could be spent helping get more minors out more frequently. One of the > things about having frequent point release like when we had with 0.94 was > that we likely could have shipped some of the earlier 1.2.0rcs and fixed > the criticals in next point release train. > > Jon. > >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I appreciate Elliot's voice for conservatism on released branches. However >> I don't think we're getting minor releases out the door fast enough, >> especially when we have nice "improvements" that apply cleanly. Users >> deserve to get as many of the improvements as are compatible for patch >> releases, according to our guidelines. >> >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> That one's on the edge for me. It's trying to work around a bug somewhere >>> that has caused data loss in prod. So I would lean towards it being a bug >>> fix. >>> >>> However pulling from my last few filed jiras I would say these are all >>> improvements: >>> HBASE-15166 >>> HBASE-15146 >>> HBASE-15137 >>> HBASE-15083 >>> >>> Some of them fixed things that we hit in production but they didn't >> change >>> correctness or cause the system to be un-usable in the normal case. So I >>> would classify them as improvements. For me I would want to backport only >>> for patch releases fixes that fixed severe issues, things that changed >>> correctness or caused a system to be un-usable. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, in fairness there could be more debatable (or even not debatable) >>>> changes on branch-1 as you say. Also, a difference of perspective. >> Would >>>> you for example consider HBASE-15211 a bug fix or improvement? >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell < >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The majority of changes in branch-1 that I see are bug fixes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that's the point that you and I differ. For me I would >> classify >>>>> most things on branch-1 as improvements and there are very few bug >>> fixes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> - Andy >>>> >>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >> Hein >>>> (via Tom White) > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
