bq. to see branch-1 be our new long term stable branch I agree. Having an experienced PMC shepherding branch-1 would lay good foundation for future 1.4+ and 2.x releases.
+1 with Andrew taking up this role. Cheers On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to see branch-1 be our new long term stable branch and so to > be maintained for roughly as long as 0.98 was: three years from first > release (1.0.0). > > It would be maintained the same way as 0.98 was. I would like to drive > monthly releases but they would only be -SNAPSHOT and never advertised as > an official release. So to get actual shipping code I guess I'd have to bug > the release RMs (smile). > > If the branch-1 RM felt like sweeping up changes and backporting for as > long as he/she likes that would be fine with me. If I were branch-1 RM I > would do that on a monthly basis. Only changes allowable on minor or point > revisions according to our compatibility guidelines would be allowed. > > We don't have a release branch RM for 1.4. I would be happy to take on > that role too, but I think it premature given 1.3.0 isn't even out yet. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I like this idea in general (and thanks for volunteering!). > > > > Speaking specifically about branch-1 and given 2.0 release > > discussions, is it proper time/thread to also discuss what > > do we want to do with branch-1? Like, say that 1.4 would be > > the last release off this line and hence branch-1 should be > > turned to 1.4, and should we wind down backports to it? > > > > -Mikhail > > > >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> HBasers, > >> > >> I would like to propose extending our informal "branch RM" concept just > a > >> bit to include the nonreleasing branches like branch-1, branch-2 (when > it > >> exists), and master. These branches are where all commits are made > passing > >> through down to the releasing branches targeted for the change (like, > >> branch-1.1, branch-1.2, branch-1.3, etc.) > >> > >> The releasing branches all have their own RM. I assume that RM is > >> diligently monitoring its state, by way of review of commit history, > >> occasional execution of the unit test suite, occasional execution of the > >> integration tests, and has perhaps some automation in place to help with > >> that on a nightly or weekly basis. No matter, let's assume there is a > >> nonzero level of scrutiny applied to them, which leads to feedback to > >> committers about inappropriate commits via compat guidelines, commits > which > >> have broken unit tests, or other indications of quality or functional > >> concerns. I think it would improve our overall velocity as a project > if we > >> could also have volunteers tending the development branches upstream > from > >> the releasing branches. Less work would fall to the RMs tending the > release > >> branches if a common troublesome commit can be caught upstream first. In > >> particular I am thinking about branch-1. > >> > >> I would like to volunteer to become the new RM for branch-1, to test and > >> refine my above proposal in practice. Unless I hear objections I will > >> assume by lazy consensus everyone is ok with this experiment. > >> > >> What this would mean: > >> > >> - JIRAs like "TestFooBar is broken on branch-1" will show up sooner, > and > >> more likely with fix patches > >> - Semiregular performance reports on branch-1 code as of date X/Y/Z, > can > >> compare with earlier reports for trending > >> - Occasional sweep through master history looking for appropriate > >> candidates for backport to branch-1, execution of said backport > >> - Occasional 1B row ITBLL torture tests, probably if failure with > bisect > >> back to commit that introduced instability > >> > >> What this does not mean: > >> > >> - The branch-1 RM will not attempt to tell other branch RMs what or > what > >> not to include in their release branches > >> - The branch-1 RM won't commit anything backported from master to any > of > >> the release branches; it will continue to be up to the release branch > >> RMs > >> what they would or would not like to be included > >> > >> Also, I don't see why I couldn't spend some time looking at master now > and > >> then. > >> > >> I am going to assume our current co-RM team for branch-2 would maybe do > >> something similar for branch-2, once it materializes. > >> > >> Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> - Andy > >> > >> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > >> Teller (via Peter Watts) > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Michael Antonov >
