This seems to make sense to me. People can always back-port features, and this encourages them to use the newer ones. It also means we will be more rigorous about stability, which is good as it is a big plus for Pig. I think for older branches, stability trumps features in a big way.
2012/11/5 Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <g...@apache.org> > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Olga Natkovich <onatkov...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Hi Gianmarco, > > > > Thanks for your comments. Here is a little more information. > > > > At Yahoo, we consider the following issues to be P1: > > > > (1) Bugs that cause wrong results being produced silently > > (2) Bugs that cause failures with no easy workaround > > > > Thanks Olga, now I get what you mean. > I don't have a strong opinion on this. > On one hand I see why you don't want to put too many patches in the > branches in order to keep things stable. > On the other hand when we do a 0.10.x release with x>0 the users would > like to have as many bugs fixed as possible. > > > Regarding tests. I would suggest we have different rules for trunk and > branches: > > > > (1) For branches, I think we should run the full regression suite > (including e2e) prior to commit. This way we can ensure branch stability > and, as number of patches should be small, will not be a burden > > (2) For trunk, we can go with test-commit only and fix things quickly > when things break. > > I think this makes sense. +1 > > > Olga > > Cheers, > -- > Gianmarco >
