Hi Jonathan, I thought I answered your email last week but I just noticed that the answer did not come through.
We tell users that at is coming in the next release. Now that Pig is quite mature and stable, we don't see much of this. Having more frequent releases definitely helps in this respect. Olga ________________________________ From: Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:14 PM Subject: Re: Our release process Olga, A related but separate question: what do y'all do when there is a feature that is finished, but for an upcoming release? ie a feature in trunk, but not in 0.11 (which, let us assume, is stable). Jon 2012/12/13 Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> > Hi Julien, > > I think for us at Yahoo to be able to run our releases directly from the > branch we would need the guarantees that I proposed in my initial email and > something that we agreed to last year. The only changes that go in are > > - Failures without reasonable workarounds > - Silent failures. > > My main concerns with the proposal is that I do not believe that our > current testing infra is robust/inclusive enough to catch errors. That's > why I am hesitant in widening the scope. > > I am fine with whatever the outcome the majority of people agrees with. I > am just saying that Yahoo will likely need a private branch if our rules > are too relaxed. > > Olga > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Olga Natkovich < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:54 PM > Subject: Re: Our release process > > Agreed. The priority of a change is subjective as well. > My definition for inclusion on the release branch: > - Only bug fixes. > - Only if they have fairly understood repercussions (up to the committers > who +/-1 as usual). > - If we thought it would not break things but still does (CI or externally > reported failure) we revert it. > What do you want to add/change? Please reformulate those rules the way you > like and let's see how we can converge. > (Also, let's keep it short for clarity) > > Julien > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Olga Natkovich <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Hi Julien, > > > > I understand what you are trying to do and I can see that being able to > > make more fixes post release has value for some use cases. My concern is > > that "things that do not destabilize the branch" is fairly subjective and > > also not always easy to ascertain beyond trivial changes. The only way I > > know to keep a code stable is to limit the updates. Also we need to > clearly > > state what the constrains are for a post release commits so that every > user > > can decide whether it works for them. > > > > Olga > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:26 AM > > Subject: Re: Our release process > > > > I think we all agree here, let's not jump to conclusions. > > Everything in this branch I am talking about is in Apache Pig. Everything > > we do in Pig is contributed. > > We have a branch for 0.11 where we keep merging the official 0.11 branch > > plus a few patches (and it will stay small) that are only in Apache > TRUNK. > > The goal here is to help keeping the release branch stable by not adding > > patches that are only useful to us. > > Having this branch allows us to fix anything quickly and redeploy to > > production. It is also what allows us to use the pig 0.11 branch in > > production before it is even released. > > This definitely benefits the community and helps making 0.11 stable. > > This is a very reasonable way to keep using a recent version of Pig in > > production. > > > > Olga: My goal is to decrease the scope of what is going in the release > > branch and to make sure we add only bug fixes that are not making it > > unstable. I also think having a short definition of this helps which is > why > > I have been chiming in. > > Let us know how you want to decrease the scope. I'm just trying to > simplify > > here. > > > > Julien > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Prashant Kommireddi < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Share the same concern as Russell here. Not great for the project for > > > everyone to go "private branch" approach. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Russell Jurney < > > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Wait. Ack. Do we want everyone to do this? This sounds like > > > fragmentation. > > > > :( > > > > > > > > Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Olga Natkovich <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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.* > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
