I was thinking in similar lines that the RM for 1.X which is the next one would be managing branch-1, but I am also concerned about the large gap in terms of timing. For example, unless we are close to 1.4, an 1.4 RM will not materialize.
So, I am in favor of having an informal branch-1 RM that will work with the 1.x RMs. An +1 for Andrew for that role. Enis On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > We could do it that way but there would be nobody promising to watch > branch-1 for any length of time. I'd like to do that. We could do this > alternative for branch-2. And it makes sense once we have this sorted to > write down what we'd like to do. > > > > On Jan 9, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Somewhat late to the reply -- > > > > Does it make sense, for branch-1, to have the person planning to RM the > > next minor release act as the RM for the major-level branch? That person > > would hand responsibility to the next minor RM upon cutting the > > stabilization branch. > > > > This could be applied to master/branch-2 as well, but the further away we > > get from a target release date, the more nebulous the RM role becomes. > > > >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:07 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > 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) > >> > >> >
