If everybody is using a private branch then (1) We are not serving a significant part of our community (2) There is no motivation to contribute those patches to branches (only to trunk).
Yahoo has been trying hard to work of the Apache branches but if we increase the scope of what is going into branches, we will go with private branch approach as well. Olga ________________________________ From: Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> To: Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Santhosh M S <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Our release process Here's my criteria for inclusion in a release branch: - no new feature. Only bug fixes. - The criteria is more about stability than priority. The person/group asking for it has a good reason for wanting it in the branch. If commiters think the patch is reasonable and won't make the branch unstable then we should check it in. If it breaks something anyway, we revert it. For what it's worth we (at Twitter) maintain an internal branch where we add patches we need and I would suggest anybody that wants to be able to make emergency fixes to their own deployment to do the same. We do keep that branch as close to apache as we can but it has a few patches that are in trunk only and do not satisfy the no new feature criteria. What does the PMC think ? Julien On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Olga Natkovich <[email protected]>wrote: > I am ok with tests running nightly and reverting patches that cause > failures. We used to have that. Does anybody know what happened? Is anybody > volunteering to make it work again? > > I would like to see specific criteria for what goes into the branch been > published (rather than case-by-case). This way each team can decided if the > criteria stringent enough of if they need to run a private branch. > > Olga > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Santhosh M S <[email protected]> > *To:* Julien Le Dem <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2012 11:46 PM > > *Subject:* Re: Our release process > > HI Julien, > > You are making most of the points that I did on this thread (CI for e2e, > not burdening clean e2e prior to every commit for a release branch). The > only point on which there is no clear agreement is the definition of a bug > that can be included in a previously released branch. I am fine with a case > by case inclusion. > > Hi Olga, > > Are you fine with Julien's proposal as it stands - bugs that are included > will be determined at the time of inclusion instead of doing it now. > > Santhosh > > > ________________________________ > From: Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Santhosh M S <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:37 PM > Subject: Re: Our release process > > Proposed criteria: > - it makes the tests fail. targets test-commit + test + e2e tests > - a critical bug is reported in a short time frame (definition of > critical not needed as it is rare and can be decided on a case by case > basis) > > That raises another question: what are the existing CI servers running > the tests? > - the Apache CI runs test-commit and test (is it more stable now?) > and not e2e. It would be great if it did. > - we have a Jenkins build at Twitter where we run test-commit and > test, we could not run e2e easily in our environment. > - I understand there's a Yahoo/Hortonworks build (test-commit + test + e2e > ???) > > Whenever those builds fail we should open or reopen JIRAS and fix it. > > The time it takes to run the full > test suite makes it impractical to > run on a desktop/laptop. > > For the release Pig-0.11.0 we need to get this list of JIRAs down to 0 > and publish the jar. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+PIG+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.11%22+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+ORDER+BY+updated+DESC%2C+due+ASC%2C+priority+DESC > > Julien > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Santhosh M S > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks like everyone is interested in having frequent releases - I don't > see anyone disagreeing with that. > > > > Regarding "If a patch > makes the release branch unstable, we revert it" - what are the criteria? > If we can't decide on the criteria on this thread (already pretty long) > then lets get the release trains going. We can revisit the criteria for > inclusion of bug fixes when that happens. > > > > Santhosh > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected]; Santhosh M S <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Sent: > Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:45 AM > > Subject: Re: Our release process > > > > The release branch receives only bug fixes. Patch level releases (3rd > > version number) are issued out of the release branch and introduce > > only bug fixes and no new features. > > Deciding whether a patch is applied to the release branch is based on > > preserving stability (as Bill said). If a patch makes the release > > branch unstable, we revert it. > > New features are added to trunk where new major and minor releases will > happen. > > If we need a new feature out then we make a new minor release. > > Doing frequent releases is the industry standard and will resolve > > conflicts around what should go in a release branch. > > > > Making a new release is currently painful *because* we wait so long in > > between two releases. Let's fix that. > > > > Julien > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at > 10:09 PM, Santhosh M S > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since releasing a major version once a month is agressive and we have > not released on a quarterly basis, we should allow commits to a released > branch to facilitate dot releases. > >> > >> If we are allowing commits to a released branch, the criteria for > inclusion can be created anew or we use the industry standards for severity > (or priority). It could be painful for a few folks but I don't see better > alternatives. > >> > >> Regarding reverting commits based on e2e tests breaking: > >> 1. Who is running the tests? > >> 2. How often are they run? > >> If we have nightly e2e runs then its easier to catch these errors > early. If not the barrier for inclusion is pretty high and time > consuming making it harder to develop. > >> > >> Santhosh > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Bill Graham <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:39 AM > >> Subject: Re: Our release process > >> > >> I agree releasing often is ideal, but releasing major versions once a > month > >> would be a bit agressive. > >> > >> +1 to Olga's initial definition of how Yahoo! determines what goes into > a > >> released branch. Basically is something broken without a workaround or > is > >> there potential silent data loss. Trying to get a more granular > definition > >> than that (i.e. P1, P2, severity, etc) will be > painful. The reality in that > >> case is that for whomever is blocked by the bug will consider it a P1. > >> > >> Fixes need to be relatively low-risk though to keep stability, but this > is > >> also subjective. For this I'm in favor of relying on developer and > reviewer > >> judgement to make that call and I'm +1 to Alan's proposal of rolling > back > >> patches that break the e2e tests or anything else. > >> > >> I think our policy should avoid time-based consideration on how many > >> quarters away are we from the next major release since that's also > >> impossible to quantify. Plus, if the answer to the question is that > we're > >> more than 1-2 quarters from the next release is "yes" then we should be > >> fixing that release problem. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I would really like to see us doing frequent releases (at least once > >>> per quarter if not once a month). > >>> I think the whole notion of priority or being a "blocker" is > subjective. > >>> Releasing infrequently pressures us to push more changes than we would > >>> want to the release branch. > >>> We should focus on keeping TRUNK stable as well so that it is easier > >>> to release and users can do more frequent and smaller upgrades. > >>> > >>> There should be a small enough number of patches going in the release > >>> branch so that we can get agreement on whether we check them in or > >>> not. > >>> I like Alan's proposal of reverting quickly when there's a problem. > >>> Again, this becomes less of a problem if we release more > often. > >>> > >>> Which leads me to my next question: what are the next steps for > >>> releasing pig 0.11 ? > >>> > >>> Julien > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Santhosh M S > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Hi Olga, > >>> > > >>> > For a moment, I will move away from P1 and P2 which are related to > >>> priorities and use the Severity definitions. > >>> > > >>> > The standard bugzilla definitions for severity are: > >>> > > >>> > Blocker - Blocks development and/or testing work. > >>> > Critical - Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. > >>> > Major - Major loss of function. > >>> > > >>> > I am > skipping the other levels (normal, minor and trivial) for this > >>> discussion. > >>> > > >>> > Coming back to priorities, the proposed definitions map P1 to Blocker > >>> and Critical. I am proposing mapping P2 to Major even when there are > known > >>> workarounds. We are doing this since JIRA does not have severity by > default > >>> (see: > https://confluence.atlassian.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=192840 > >>> ) > >>> > > >>> > I am proposing that P2s be included in the released branch only when > >>> trunk or unreleased versions are known to be backward incompatible or > if > >>> the release is more than a quarter (or two) away. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Santhosh > >>> > > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Santhosh M S < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:41 AM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > Hi Santhosh, > >>> > > >>> > What is your definition of P2s? > >>> > > >>> > Olga > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ----- Original > Message ----- > >>> > From: Santhosh M S <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Olga Natkovich < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> > Cc: > >>> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:49 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > Hi Olga, > >>> > > >>> > I agree that we cannot guarantee backward compatibility upfront. With > >>> that knowledge, I am proposing a small modification to your proposal. > >>> > > > >>> > 1. If the trunk or unreleased version is known to be backwards > >>> compatible then only P1 issues go into the released branch. > >>> > 2. If the the trunk or unreleased version is known to be backwards > >>> incompatible or the release is a long ways off (two quarters?) then we > >>> should allow for dot releases on the branch, i.e., P1 and P2 issues. > >>> > > >>> > I am hoping that should provide an incentive for users to move to a > >>> higher release and at the same time allow developers to fix issues of > >>> significance without impacting stability. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Santhosh > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:38 AM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > Hi Santhosh, > >>> > > >>> > I understand the compatibility issue though I am not sure we can > >>> guarantee it for all releases upfront but agree that we should make an > >>> effort. > >>> > > >>> > On the e2e tests, part of the proposal is only do make P1 type of > >>> changes to the branch after the initial release so they should be rare. > >>> > > >>> > Olga > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Santhosh M S <[email protected]> > >>> > To: Olga Natkovich <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 12:00 AM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > It takes too long to run. If the e2e tests are run every night or a > >>> reasonable timeframe then it will reduce the barrier for submitting > >>> patches. The context for this: > the reluctance of folks to move to a higher > >>> version when the higher version is not backward compatible. > >>> > > >>> > Santhosh > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Santhosh M S < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 5:56 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > Hi > Santhosh, > >>> > > >>> > Can you clarify why running e2e tests on every checking is a problem? > >>> > > >>> > Olga > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Santhosh M S <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:48 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > The push for an upgrade will work only if the higher release is > backward > >>> compatible with the lower release. If not, folks will tend to use > private > >>> branches. Having a stable branch on a large deployment is a good > indicator > >>> of stability. However, please note that there have been instances where > >>> some releases were never adopted. I will be extremely careful in > applying > >>> the rule of > >>> > running e2e tests for every commit to a released branch. > >>> > > >>> > If we release every quarter (hopefully) and preserve backward > >>> compatibility then I am +1 to the proposal. If the backward > compatibility > >>> is not preserved then I am -1 for having to run e2e for every commit > to a > >>> released branch. > >>> > > >>> > Santhosh > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 6:34 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: Our release process > >>> > > >>> > I think it might be good to clarify (for me) a couple of cases: > >>> > > >>> > 1. we have branched a new release > >>> > 2. an existing release > >>> > > >>> > The way I understand things, in the case of 1, we have > >>> > a backlog of patches > >>> > (not all of which are P1 bugs), and that's ok. If a new bad bug > comes in > >>> > (the subject of debate here), then it goes in anyway (and in some > cases, > >>> > would go into 0.9 etc). > >>> > > >>> > Olga is saying that for existing release (0.9, 0.10), we should only > >>> commit > >>> > P1 bug fixes there. This makes sense to me, as we're fixing the > "official > >>> > release" in place. > >>> > > >>> > IMHO, this would encourage people to use newer release (as this is > where > >>> > the latest and greatest stuff is, including non-critical bug fixes). > >>> Olga's > >>> > criteria is a pretty clear barrier for inclusion into these releases. > >>> With > >>> > old releases, I think the key is really that they keep doing what > they > >>> have > >>> > always done. Most bugs are well understood by now, and the ones that > >>> aren't > >>> > will no doubt be P1. > >>> > > >>> > > I'm not decided (thus no formal +1 or whatnot), but Olga's point seems > >>> > pretty reasonable to me, especially given that trunk has pretty > >>> > liberal > >>> > development. Once it gets tidied up, I can understand not wanting to > >>> jostle > >>> > it. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > 2012/11/5 Alan Gates <[email protected]> > >>> > > >>> >> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> Hi, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Olga > Natkovich < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> >> >> 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 > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me > at > >> [email protected] going forward.* > >
