> On May 1, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Anthony Young-Garner > <anthony.young-gar...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > If we rebase the feature branch on master on a regular basis does that > address the git history concern? I realize we'll need to communicate > quickly on the list when there are conflicts.
Would this require regular force pushes on the feature branch? This may be destructive for developers who have work in progress, but if they are Ok with it it may work. > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> One aspect we should consider is git history - working on feature branch >> tends to produce a complicated git tree with many merges instead of the >> linear tree that we get by working on master directly. >> >> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Na Li <lina...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >>> Steve, >>> >>> I am OK for ABAC to be on feature branch if you make sure 1) pull latest >>> master to your feature branch 2) Let us review your changes with all unit >>> tests pass. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Lina >>> >>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Moist <mo...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I’m fine with putting everything into a feature branch for now. Right >>>> now, the initial ABAC patch is a working solution. It’s not the final >>>> solution that we plan to deliver. We could keep iterating on >>> SENTRY-2201 < >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2201> and adding more >> code >>>> to a single patch and merge it back into master. I don’t think anyone >> in >>>> the community is going to want to review a 10mb patch. So, I think >> going >>>> forward, we will submit patches to an abac feature branch. We plan to >>> keep >>>> iterating and expanding on the code base. We want to always have a end >>> to >>>> end working solution at all time that our QA team can test. Once the >>>> Sentry community feels that abac is stable, we can merge it into >> master. >>>> This way it 1) doesn’t impact Sentry 2.1 2) We don’t ship an incomplete >>>> feature in 2.1 3)We can keep moving forward with development. >>>> >>>> With that said, I expect then the Sentry community (and more >> specifically >>>> Committers) to stay on top of the changes we’re making to this feature >>>> branch. I don’t want everyone to ignore it for a few months and then >>> start >>>> re-reveiwing with it as we merge it back into master when we get to the >>> end. >>>> >>>> Does this sound good to the community? >>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Stephen, >>>>> >>>>> a lot depends on your plans in terms of breaking functionality. For >>>>> example, one of the reasons Sentry HA was developed on a feature >> branch >>>> was >>>>> because it was a serious change in architecture and in broke >>>> functionality >>>>> for a while. I think some of the merge problems which Sergio referred >>> to >>>>> were caused by poor planning and communication - I think we are in >> much >>>>> better shape now. >>>>> >>>>> One thing I would be concerned (in case you do your development in >>> master >>>>> branch) is that we end up shipping a release with half-baked feature >>>> where >>>>> there is a bunch of things that are there for the future but not >> really >>>>> used. If you think this isn't a really a problem, developing on >> master >>> is >>>>> fine since it will automatically handle any potential conflicts with >>>>> fine-grained privileges changes. >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Moist <mo...@cloudera.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey all, what does the current roadmap and release schedule look >> like >>>> for >>>>>> FGP and ABAC? I’ve been told that FGP is going out in the next >>> release, >>>>>> ABAC is more slated for the summer. How do we want to handle >>>> simultaneous >>>>>> development of these features? For ABAC, our dev process is more >>> agile. >>>>>> So while we have a working version of ABAC right now in review, it’s >>> not >>>>>> the final solution. We plan to iterate, improve, fix and add >> features >>>> to >>>>>> it over the next few months. I had talked with Kalyan and Sergio >>>> offline >>>>>> once, they don’t like large patches and recommended not using a >>> feature >>>>>> branch. I don’t see an issue with continuing to develop ABAC and >> FGP >>> at >>>>>> the same time and committing both to master. We’ll add a switch in >>>> ABAC to >>>>>> turn the feature off for now through the next release. What does >> the >>>>>> community think about supporting development of two different >> features >>>> at >>>>>> once? >>>> >>>> >>> >>
