As branch-1 "RM" I don't need to be in the loop when a committer wants to commit something there, and wouldn't have the bandwidth for it anyway. So if someone wants to put something in branch-N.M, feel free to commit it to master, then branch-N, then branch-N.M, as is our current workflow. If the commit is bad and not dealt with in a timely manner it may be reverted from both places (potentially by me). This is also not a change, except someone is paying more attention to branch-1. I also agree that if we've reverted something from branch-N then it has to be reverted from branch-N.M, and I would expect the PMC to enforce this sanity. Likewise, if something has been released on branch-N.M, then it cannot be reverted from branch-N. That kind of inconsistency in commit lineage would make things unmanageable.
Th most likely case where the branch-N maintainer's judgement would come in conflict with a committer's judgement and need resolution would be if a commit is made that causes observed instability, or performance regression, or is a (potentially, debatable) violation of compatibility guidelines, and the branch-N maintainer executes a revert of the commit from branch-N and any children branch-N.M, so long as the change has not been released. On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com> wrote: > One question to reiterate on the commit flow.. > > I think we agreed, as you said, that branch-N RM won't dictate what to > backport and what not to released branches maintainers, but > at least logically I'd still treat that as an additional "line of defense" > for too big, too risky or otherwise questionable commits. I.e. if branch-N > RM > doesn't feel like porting patch from master to branch-N, it's surely isn't > safe enough to port to branch-N.M? Thoughts? > > -Mikhail > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Good, I think we are on the same page regards a long term maintainer for > > branch-1. I can make a multi year commitment like I did with 0.98. How > that > > works with respect to branching for minor releases we can figure out. My > > thought is anytime someone wants to branch off to make a minor release, > RM > > it, and run with it, that's great, and the more on the project who do > that > > the better off we will be with the releasing work well spread around. At > > the same time people won't have infinite time to maintain minor branches > > and generate patch releases, so when the maintainer of a minor branch > feels > > like moving on, whenever that is, this is perfectly fine. This is > basically > > the current situation, except maybe minor branch RMs are feeling they > have > > themselves taken on a long term commitment (this can change, up to the > > individual, as it has always been), and there is no maintainer on the > > upstream branch (this will change). > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I should say I was talking more about "should these things be discussed > > > together or separately", not any particular direction we should > > > or should not take, as I didn't want to accidentally steal the topic. > > > > > > But speaking specifically on that.. saying that we're going to maintain > > > branch-1 lines until at least Feb 2018 definitely makes total sense to > > me. > > > 2 years overlap with 2.0 might be something we'd want to discuss in > some > > > more depth. > > > > > > -Mikhail > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Mikhail Antonov < > olorinb...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:07 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). > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > I would definitely not be comfortable retiring branch-1 any time this > > > > CY, given the unknown state of both the 2.0 release process and how > > > > long that branch has been without a release. Three years from 1.0.0 > > > > puts us at February 2018. The 0.98 branch had the benefit of nearly 2 > > > > years overlap with branch-1 releases; should branch-1 have a similar > > > > window with branch-2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Michael Antonov > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Michael Antonov > -- Best regards, - Andy If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond Teller (via Peter Watts)
