I agree with Andrew here. We had a good cadence with 98 -- I didn't mean to exclude. The fast cadence of 94/98 releases was good -- the more recent 1.x lines haven't been as frequent.
Using the more precise terminology Andrew suggests-- if we used our new versioning rules back in the 94/98 days, many would effectively have been patch releases (e.g.: using snapshots as an example, 94.3, .4, .5 were roughly patch releases, and 94.6 which intro'ed snapshots which would have been a minor). We just didn't make it obvious to users back then. Jon. On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > 'Point release' isn't precise enough terminology. We have major, minor, > and patch releases: > > 0.96 -> 0.98 or 1.0 -> 2.0 - major > 0.98.0 -> 0.98.1, or 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 - minor > 0.98.0 -> 0.98.0.1, or 1.0.0 -> 1.0.1 - patch > > I think Elliott's point of view is spot on for patch releases and > furthermore our semver-like policy as documented expresses that > conservatism when discussing point releases. > > For minor releases I agree with Nick. Users should benefit from > improvements that don't break compatibility as defined by our guidelines. > For example 0.98 is the last release before region replicas. Some might be > shy about upgrading to a release containing this major change but will > definitely want perf improvements, operability improvements to tooling, and > such. When something like MOB goes in we'll have another such point. > > For major releases we have given ourselves leeway to do big things, but > that's going to be a case by case discussion, where even so we want to give > users a way to make a smooth transition. > > > 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 > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
