I'd vote -1 on Shai's variation and +1 on Mike's proposal.
I don't think features should be backported to stable on request. If we
go this route, I think it should be a matter of course unless the
feature is hairy enough to warrant unstable.
Saying we should do all dev on unstable, and only back port on request
(who will police that? everyone will accept all requests?) and that we
should just release trunk more often to accommodate, is like saying,
lets just throw back compat out the window, every release will be free
to break back compat, we will just release more often...
Working on two branches won't be 100% joy, but loosening the existing
much larger annoyance of back compat is not going to be free IMO. To me,
Shai's proposal is essentially - lets keep everything the same, but
release more often (we have decided to that 100 times) and lose back
compat requirements. Then if a dev takes pity on a user, perhaps one of
the unstable releases will get a backport of a feature.
If we take that route, I am vehemently against changing our policy.
On 4/22/10 9:52 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
I was advocating that we always develop on trunk w/ no back-compat
support, API-wise ... you could have developed flex w/ no bw support.
Currently what you're proposing would cause most features to be
developed on stable w/ bw support and trunk w/o. I propose to leave
'stable', develop on trunk w/ no bw support (except for index format)
and back port features "on demand" to stable w/ bw support.
So instead of forcing all development to go through stable + trunk, I
propose to go through trunk, and back port to stable only if
requested. In the end we'll be in the same position (trunk having all
features) except for stable which will include just those features of
interest to other people.
Shai
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Michael McCandless
<luc...@mikemccandless.com <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com
<mailto:ser...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The only downside is that we will need to do everything twice:
once on
> stable and once on trunk. I still think that most of the issues and
> development don't affect bw at all and thus we'll always say "this
> needs to go to stable and trunk" which will just be an annoyance and
> complicate the life of the developers even more because not only
will
> we need to keep bw compat, we'll need to write the code for trunk as
> well.
Well, most things. Some features (eg flex would've been such a
feature) will only happen in trunk.
But, yes, this is a downside -- stable changes will have to be merged
up to trunk.
> What if we always develop on trunk, release it more often, and if
> requested or a committer needs it, we backport a certain feature to
> stable?
This is what we do today, and I think what's broken about it is we are
unable to make a big change that has major breaks from the start.
Every big change is required to land on trunk with back compat intact.
This is terribly costly for changes like the new analyzer API (Token
-> AttrSource migration), and flex.
So with the new model, a big change like flex could land on trunk with
no back compat, and age for a long time, along with other such
changes, before being included in a major release.
I'm not sure we'll release trunk (major releases) more often. I think
it could go both ways...
For small changes, I think whether a given dev works on trunk and
merges back to stable, or stable and merges forwards to trunk, is an
individual choice...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
<mailto:dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
<mailto:dev-h...@lucene.apache.org>
