Hi guys,
 
Mid next year, we agreed on a release process documented in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04172.html.
 
Since then, we have not really followed either of its two rules:
 
(1) Frequent (every 3 month releases)
(2) Branch stability (only P1 issues on the branch).
 
So I wanted to revisit our release procedure to make sure we have one that we can actually follow.
 
For us at Yahoo, branch stability is very important since we release all the patches directly from the branch. If we can't rely on the fact that only critical fixes go in, we will need to resort to git branches that will make the whole process very comberson because we now need to hand pick patches from the apache branch and port them onto our private branch. I would imaging that others using Pig in production would have similar issues.
 
Olga
 
 
Olga

I am all for maintaining stability of branches, and the trunk, as everyone benefits from it.  But I do not think this means we should limit bug fixing in the branches to only critical issues.  As Pig gets more users we have more and more people on older branches who will want fixes for bugs without dealing with bigger version changes.  So I am not in favor of limiting checkins to branches to P1 issues.

What if we maintain stability on the branches by quickly reverting any patches that break the build, the unit tests, or the e2e tests?  This allows us to move forward with bug fix versions, it allows those who depend on branch stability (which I suspect is everyone in the distribution business plus everyone rolling their own Pig), and it should promote developer responsibility (no one likes having their patches reverted).

Alan.
  
On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote:

> Hi guys,
>  
> Mid next year, we agreed on a release process documented in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04172.html.
>  
> Since then, we have not really followed either of its two rules:
>  
> (1) Frequent (every 3 month releases)
> (2) Branch stability (only P1 issues on the branch).
>  
> So I wanted to revisit our release procedure to make sure we have one that we can actually follow.
>  
> For us at Yahoo, branch stability is very important since we release all the patches directly from the branch. If we can't rely on the fact that only critical fixes go in, we will need to resort to git branches that will make the whole process very comberson because we now need to hand pick patches from the apache branch and port them onto our private branch. I would imaging that others using Pig in production would have similar issues.
>  
> Olga
>  
>  
> Olga

Hi,

I agree with what Alan says and I like his proposal.
However, to make it feasible, we need to make jenkins builds stable,
otherwise a real problem introduced by a patch might be lost in the
hundreds of failures due to clover licenses, minicluster issues, etc...

I don't like too much making jenkins post to jira the results of the build
after a patch is committed, as it pollutes the jira itself, however in this
case it might be a good way to promote developer responsibility. Is it
possible to activate this only for branches?

Cheers,
--
Gianmarco

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am all for maintaining stability of branches, and the trunk, as everyone
> benefits from it.  But I do not think this means we should limit bug fixing
> in the branches to only critical issues.  As Pig gets more users we have
> more and more people on older branches who will want fixes for bugs without
> dealing with bigger version changes.  So I am not in favor of limiting
> checkins to branches to P1 issues.
>
> What if we maintain stability on the branches by quickly reverting any
> patches that break the build, the unit tests, or the e2e tests?  This
> allows us to move forward with bug fix versions, it allows those who depend
> on branch stability (which I suspect is everyone in the distribution
> business plus everyone rolling their own Pig), and it should promote
> developer responsibility (no one likes having their patches reverted).
>
> Alan.
>
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Mid next year, we agreed on a release process documented in this thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04172.html.
> >
> > Since then, we have not really followed either of its two rules:
> >
> > (1) Frequent (every 3 month releases)
> > (2) Branch stability (only P1 issues on the branch).
> >
> > So I wanted to revisit our release procedure to make sure we have one
> that we can actually follow.
> >
> > For us at Yahoo, branch stability is very important since we release all
> the patches directly from the branch. If we can't rely on the fact that
> only critical fixes go in, we will need to resort to git branches that will
> make the whole process very comberson because we now need to hand pick
> patches from the apache branch and port them onto our private branch. I
> would imaging that others using Pig in production would have similar issues.
> >
> > Olga
> >
> >
> > Olga
>
>

I can see how this would work for research projects but for real production this will not work. And I actually meant much more stringent stability. I don't think we should commit patches to either trunk or branch that destabilize the tree. We used to run full regression before each commit - is this no longer the case? By stability I meant very few things go into the branch. I know that pig has pretty decent tests - better coverage than many other projects. However, we do not have any testing at scale and inevitably, users end up doing testing. So any time we deploy new major version, it takes us at least a month to get it stable and once it is stabilized we want to keep it this way.

So for us at Yahoo, the only way to work directly from the branch is to go by our original plan. If that is not possible, we would go with the private git branch.

Olga
________________________________
 From: Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Our release process
 
I am all for maintaining stability of branches, and the trunk, as everyone benefits from it.  But I do not think this means we should limit bug fixing in the branches to only critical issues.  As Pig gets more users we have more and more people on older branches who will want fixes for bugs without dealing with bigger version changes.  So I am not in favor of limiting checkins to branches to P1 issues.

What if we maintain stability on the branches by quickly reverting any patches that break the build, the unit tests, or the e2e tests?  This allows us to move forward with bug fix versions, it allows those who depend on branch stability (which I suspect is everyone in the distribution business plus everyone rolling their own Pig), and it should promote developer responsibility (no one likes having their patches reverted).

Alan.
 
On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> Mid next year, we agreed on a release process documented in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04172.html.
> 
> Since then, we have not really followed either of its two rules:
> 
> (1) Frequent (every 3 month releases)
> (2) Branch stability (only P1 issues on the branch).
> 
> So I wanted to revisit our release procedure to make sure we have one that we can actually follow.
> 
> For us at Yahoo, branch stability is very important since we release all the patches directly from the branch. If we can't rely on the fact that only critical fixes go in, we will need to resort to git branches that will make the whole process very comberson because we now need to hand pick patches from the apache branch and port them onto our private branch. I would imaging that others using Pig in production would have similar issues.
> 
> Olga
> 
> 
> Olga

Hi,

Sure we don't want to commit patches that destabilize the code base.
However, unfortunately, there is no way to know whether a patch will
destabilize the code or not. Even testing is only a heuristic. So how do we
draw the line?
We seem to agree that only bug fixing should go into branches. However it
seems that we have two different views on the policy: Olga is proposing to
have only P1 bugs fixed, while Alan is suggesting to be more lax on what
goes into the branches.
Regardless of the policy chosen, how do we define the priority of a bug? By
how many users are affected? By whether it can corrupt data? Is there a
formal definition we can agree on? Otherwise defining a policy becomes hard.

The test-commit task does not run full regression because the full test
suite takes too long to execute. And I agree that asking to run the full
test suite before committing any change slows down the (already slow)
review process.
However, I would be fine with running the full test suite for bug fixes
that need to go into branches, in order to guarantee absence of regressions.

Cheers,
--
Gianmarco

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Olga Natkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I can see how this would work for research projects but for real
> production this will not work. And I actually meant much more stringent
> stability. I don't think we should commit patches to either trunk or branch
> that destabilize the tree. We used to run full regression before each
> commit - is this no longer the case? By stability I meant very few things
> go into the branch. I know that pig has pretty decent tests - better
> coverage than many other projects. However, we do not have any testing at
> scale and inevitably, users end up doing testing. So any time we deploy new
> major version, it takes us at least a month to get it stable and once it is
> stabilized we want to keep it this way.
>
> So for us at Yahoo, the only way to work directly from the branch is to go
> by our original plan. If that is not possible, we would go with the private
> git branch.
>
> Olga
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 8:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Our release process
>
> I am all for maintaining stability of branches, and the trunk, as everyone
> benefits from it.  But I do not think this means we should limit bug fixing
> in the branches to only critical issues.  As Pig gets more users we have
> more and more people on older branches who will want fixes for bugs without
> dealing with bigger version changes.  So I am not in favor of limiting
> checkins to branches to P1 issues.
>
> What if we maintain stability on the branches by quickly reverting any
> patches that break the build, the unit tests, or the e2e tests?  This
> allows us to move forward with bug fix versions, it allows those who depend
> on branch stability (which I suspect is everyone in the distribution
> business plus everyone rolling their own Pig), and it should promote
> developer responsibility (no one likes having their patches reverted).
>
> Alan.
>
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Mid next year, we agreed on a release process documented in this thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04172.html.
> >
> > Since then, we have not really followed either of its two rules:
> >
> > (1) Frequent (every 3 month releases)
> > (2) Branch stability (only P1 issues on the branch).
> >
> > So I wanted to revisit our release procedure to make sure we have one
> that we can actually follow.
> >
> > For us at Yahoo, branch stability is very important since we release all
> the patches directly from the branch. If we can't rely on the fact that
> only critical fixes go in, we will need to resort to git branches that will
> make the whole process very comberson because we now need to hand pick
> patches from the apache branch and port them onto our private branch. I

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

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.

Olga
________________________________
From: Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Olga Natkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2012 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Our release process

Hi,

Sure we don't want to commit patches that destabilize the code base.
However, unfortunately, there is no way to know whether a patch will
destabilize the code or not. Even testing is only a heuristic. So how do we
draw the line?
We seem to agree that only bug fixing should go into branches. However it
seems that we have two different views on the policy: Olga is proposing to
have only P1 bugs fixed, while Alan is suggesting to be more lax on what
goes into the branches.
Regardless of the policy chosen, how do we define the priority of a bug? By
how many users are affected? By whether it can corrupt data? Is there a
formal definition we can agree on? Otherwise defining a policy becomes hard.

The test-commit task does not run full regression because the full test
suite takes too long to execute. And I agree that asking to run the full
test suite before committing any change slows down the (already slow)
review process.
However, I would be fine with running the full test suite for bug fixes
that need to go into branches, in order to guarantee absence of regressions.

Cheers,
--
Gianmarco

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Olga Natkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I can see how this would work for research projects but for real
> production this will not work. And I actually meant much more stringent
> stability. I don't think we should commit patches to either trunk or branch
> that destabilize the tree. We used to run full regression before each
> commit - is this no longer the case? By stability I meant very few things
> go into the branch. I know that pig has pretty decent tests - better
> coverage than many other projects. However, we do not have any testing at
> scale and inevitably, users end up doing testing. So any time we deploy new
> major version, it takes us at least a month to get it stable and once it is
> stabilized we want to keep it this way.
>
> So for us at Yahoo, the only way to work directly from the branch is to go
> by our original plan. If that is not possible, we would go with the private
> git branch.
>
> Olga
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 8:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Our release process
>
> I am all for maintaining stability of branches, and the trunk, as everyone
> benefits from it.  But I do not think this means we should limit bug fixing
> in the branches to only critical issues.  As Pig gets more users we have
> more and more people on older branches who will want fixes for bugs without
> dealing with bigger version changes.  So I am not in favor of limiting
> checkins to branches to P1 issues.
>
> What if we maintain stability on the branches by quickly reverting any
> patches that break the build, the unit tests, or the e2e tests?  This
> allows us to move forward with bug fix versions, it allows those who depend
> on branch stability (which I suspect is everyone in the distribution
> business plus everyone rolling their own Pig), and it should promote
> developer responsibility (no one likes having their patches reverted).
>
> Alan.
>
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote:

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

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
>

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
>>

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
> >>
>
>

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,

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

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
> >>>
> >>
>

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
 >
 this.
 >>

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.

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

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?
 consuming making it harder to develop.
 painful. The reality in that
 often.
 skipping the other levels (normal, minor and trivial) for this
 >
 Message -----
 >
 >
 the reluctance of folks to move to a higher
 Santhosh,
 private
 cases,
 > I'm not decided (thus no formal +1 or whatnot), but Olga's point seems
 >>
 Natkovich <
 this.
 >> >>> (2) For trunk, we can go with test-commit only and fix things

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
10:09 PM, Santhosh M S
consuming making it harder to develop.
painful. The reality in that
often.
skipping the other levels (normal, minor and trivial) for this
Message -----
the reluctance of folks to move to a higher
Santhosh,
private
cases,
Natkovich <
this.

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.

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

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

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

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]" <

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]

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

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

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 <

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

Hi Olga,

Daniel has cut the 0.10.1 branch and the release candidate is up for a vote. I think its reasonable to expect such releases where there are a lot of bug fixes. In 0.10.1 there are 48 fixes in all.

The list of bug fixes does not fit the criteria of being having no workaround or failing silently.

Does that work for? 
Santhosh
________________________________
 From: Olga Natkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Our release process
 
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