+1 Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
2015-11-12 7:21 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>: > Changing subject in order to consolidate discussion of a 1.0 release in > one thread (there was some additional discussion in the thread regarding > the JStorm code merge). > > I just want to make sure I’m accurately capturing the sentiment of the > community with regard to a 1.0 release. Please correct me if my summary > seems off-base or jump in with an opinion. > > In summary: > > 1. What we have been calling “0.11.0” will become the Storm 1.0 release. > 2. We will NOT be migrating package names for this release (i.e. > “backtype.storm” —> “org.apache.storm”). > 3. Post 1.0 release we will go into feature freeze for core functionality > to facilitate the JStorm merge. > 4. During the feature freeze only fixes for high priority bugs in core > functionality will be accepted (no new features). > 5. During the feature freeze, enhancements to “external” modules can be > accepted. > 6. We will stop using the “beta” flag in favor of purely numeric version > numbers. Stable vs. non-stable (development) releases can be indicated on > the download page. > > Do we all agree? > > -Taylor > > > On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> I would like to see STORM-1190, STORM-1155, STORM-1198, STORM-1196, > STORM-885, STORM-876, STORM-1145, STORM-831, and STORM-874 added to the > list. > >> > >> Some of them are more important then others but they are all things I > would like to see in a 0.11.0 release. > > > > > > Cool. Thanks for listing them out. I will add them so they get tracked. > > > > > >> On a side note I don't think the beta releases have been helpful. I > would much rather just have a 0.11.0 go to 0.11.1 ... instead of > 0.11.0-beta1, 0.11.0-beta2. To me the beta label is not that helpful, but > it is not that big of a deal for me. > > > > In my mind, having releases tagged as “beta” were a way for us to say to > users “here’s a preview release that will allow you to kick the tires on > upcoming features, but be aware that there might be bugs. Let us know if > you find any so we can fix them.” > > > > I think the intent was sound, but what I didn’t really see was user > feedback on the beta releases, which is what I hoped would happen. So I > have no problem with dropping the use of “beta” flags. > > > > Another approach I’ve seen other Apache projects use is to the numbering > scheme you describe, and just have different labels/descriptions on the > download page — i.e. “Latest stable release” and “Latest development > release.” The nice part of that convention is that it does not have any > impact on the release process. For example if we’re confident that a > particular “development” release is actually quite stable, all we would > have to do is update the downloads page, rather than go through the whole > release/vote process just to remove the “beta” tag. > > > >> I also would like to see the 0.11 release tied to the plan for the > JStorm merger. If we don't tie them together there can be code that does > not make it into 0.11, but could make it into a 0.12 that will immediately > be caught up in the merger, that could take a long time to complete. I > mostly want us to be very transparent about what is likely to happen after > 0.11 is released. So if someone has a feature that is close to getting > something in to 0.11 that they speak up here instead of just deciding to > wait for a 0.12 release. > > > > > > I agree that the 0.11 release needs to be tied to the JStorm merger. > Once that release goes out, we’ll be going into lockdown mode for the merge > effort, which is likely to take a while. > > > > During that time it’s highly unlikely that any changes/additions to > Storm’s core functionality will be accepted beyond high-priority bug fixes. > Adding new features to the “external” components during that time is > probably okay, since those components are sufficiently decoupled from > Storm’s core functionality. > > > > So to reiterate Bobby’s statement: > > > > Please speak up now if there are any specific features or changes to > Storm’s core functionality that you’d like to see in the next release. > Otherwise you will have to wait. > > > >> - Bobby > > > > -Taylor > > > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:32 AM, John Fang < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Totally agree， it's great to accelerate the release speed. it is > better release one official version within 3 months. The first month is for > developing new features , .If some features hasn't been finished in this > month, it will be put in the next release ticket. In the last two month, we > just do test. > >> Storm may face the greatest challenge in a big cluster, so I am more > concerned about ZK Optimization as jstorm did. At last, it's great for the > next release to has a test report about the stability and performance , due > to lots of new features in the latest versions. > >> > >> Regards > >> John Fang > >> > >> -----邮件原件----- > >> 发件人: P. Taylor Goetz [mailto:[email protected]] > >> 发送时间: 2015年11月11日 6:16 > >> 收件人: [email protected] > >> 主题: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release > >> > >> I’d like to start discussing our next release (0.11.0). > >> > >> First off, I’d like to create a list of issues/features that are > in-progress and not yet merged to master, so we can start tracking them for > inclusion in the release. If there are specific JIRAs you would like > included, please reply, and I will add them to the wiki page for the 0.11.0 > release [1]. > >> > >> Second, I’d like to propose modifying the release cycle a bit. I’d like > to continue the beta release cycle we started with 0.10.0, but this time > I’d like to consider adding some sort of temporal constraint so we release > new betas more often — something like a new beta release every 3 weeks or > so until we feel confident in dropping the beta tag. IMHO, there was too > long a gap between 0.10.0-beta1 and 0.10.0 and we should have had more > interim releases during that time. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >> [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STORM/Release+0.11.0+Feature+Set > >> > >> > > > > -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
