> This is not something RMs have had to do > in the past and it asks a lot of them.
+1. It is too much for RM to do if RM alone is responsible for maintaining Git/Jira in sync. The reason why I was able to get the diffs for 2.3.4 and 2.4.1 RCs is because I used a small script that a) goes through all commits, b) gets Jira number, c) search for the Jira fields using it's API and d) finds the diff. And similarly using JQL, it finds all Jiras with expected fixVersion but has no git commit present. Mostly I will raise PR for this script tomorrow early as part of HBASE-25514. If we have enough trust on this, when RM given heads up on dev mailing list for a new release, more committers can be encouraged to start using this script to find any discrepancy, resolve it if possible and keep in mind the upcoming release version while resolving a Jira. However, this is just a script that can help specifically just before spinning RCs. More precautionary steps would be bringing awareness of all active branches and how they relate to active releases as mentioned by Andrew. On 2021/01/15 18:39:18, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > We do not have a single source of truth as to what are active branches and > what was the most recent release by version number made from each branch. > If we had such a resource, then committers could refer to it whenever > merging PRs or cherry picking commits backward. Perhaps something can be > created that takes the union of git branch listing and reporter.a.o release > version history. The downside of course it this would be something new to > maintain. Committers would also need to be educated about the existence of > this tool and the requirement to use it, but that could be solved with an > update to the How To Release section of the online book. I filed > HBASE-25515 for this idea. > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:05 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I have now had to sink two 2.4.1 RCs because of errors in the change log. > > > > I made a pass over git history and ensured every commit was included. I > > had also made a pass over JIRA to move out any unresolved issues or > > complete the resolution of same. What I did not do is check that every > > resolved JIRA corresponded to an actual commit. This is not something RMs > > have had to do in the past and it asks a lot of them. > > > > I know NOW that as RM I cannot currently trust committers to get fix > > versions right or care about this. > > > > That's right... Commtters cannot be trusted to correctly maintain issue > > metadata in JIRA. > > > > That is not a good situation for the project to be in. Up until now it has > > not been the responsibility of the RM to check each and every JIRA status. > > It has been the collective responsibility of committers to care about the > > project's release tracking insofar as to correctly update fix versions in > > JIRA. For releases containing relatively few changes, like 2.4.1, with ~50 > > changes, I suppose it is possible for the RM to remove all 2.4.1 fix > > versions, walk the commit history, and set back fix versions on JIRA to > > actually correspond with what was truly committed. However, for minor > > releases, with hundreds of commits, this will not be possible. > > > > I think the root cause is GitHub and JIRA are two separate change tracking > > systems with only a minimal amount of integration. It requires manual > > effort. More and more, new committers are familiar with GitHub and PRs and > > are not familiar with JIRA and the Apache way of using JIRA to build change > > logs. We need to better educate new and existing committers on their > > responsibilities with regards to maintaining JIRA metadata correctly. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > decrepit hands > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
