Jonathan, for clarity, are you saying you agree that we should only put bug fixes in branches or we should only put high priority bug fixes in branches? I think we all agree on the former, but there appear to be different views on the latter.
Alan. On Nov 5, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonathan Coveney wrote: > 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 >>
