Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support sustaining bug fixes


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support sustaining bug fixes
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey Matt,
>
> Thanks for the proposal, agree we should sort these out.
>
> Wrt #1 IIUC the new workflow would be to use Target Version like we
> use Fix Version today, but only set the Fix Version when we actually
> commit to the given branch for the release.
Exactly.
> Seems reasonable.
> Definitely better than creating a separate jira per branch.
>
> Wrt #2 I think we can handle this by people following the patch naming
> guidelines (in http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute) and
> closing out HADOOP-7435.
>

I'm okay with that.  And that change to Jira would probably be hard to get
accepted by Infra anyway.

I've transcribed the patch naming convention into HADOOP-7435, and assigned
it to myself.

Thanks,
--Matt

Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches.  We
> > have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while we hope that 0.23 will
> > finally replace it.  Even after that happens, we will then need to do
> > sustaining releases on 0.23 while future development goes into 0.24 or
> 0.25,
> > and so on.
> >
> > This is the price we pay for having this stuff actually in use in
> > production.  That's a good thing!
> > And it's been that way in every software company I've worked in.
> >
> > My current efforts as release manager for 0.20.205 have made a couple
> > deficiencies in our Jira infrastructure painfully obvious.  So I would
> like
> > to propose two changes that will make it way easier and more reliable to
> > handle patches for sustaining bug fixes.  But I wanted to bounce them off
> > you and make sure they have community support before asking the
> > Infrastructure team to look at them.
> >
> >
> > 1. Add a custom field "Target Version/s" [list].
> >
> > Motivation: When making a release, one wants to query all Jiras marked
> fixed
> > in this release.  This can't be done reliably with current usage.
> > Also, one wants to be able to query all open issues targeted for a given
> > branch.  This can't be done reliably either.
> >
> > Why current usage is deficient:  Currently we have "Affects Version/s"
> and
> > "Fix Version/s".  But the Fix Versions is being overloaded.  It is used
> to
> > mean "should be fixed in" (target versions) while the bug is open, and
> "is
> > fixed in" (fix versions) after the bug is resolved.  That's fine if
> there's
> > only one branch in use.  But if a fix is targeted for both A and B, and
> it's
> > actually committed to A but not yet to B, there's no way to query the
> state
> > of the fix.  The bug appears open for both (or sometimes it's incorrectly
> > closed for both!).  You have to manually visit the individual bug report
> and
> > review the SubversionCommits.  This might be automatable, but it sure
> isn't
> > easily expressed.
> >
> > If we add a Target Versions field, then intent and completion can be
> > separately marked (in the Target Versions and Fix Versions,
> respectively),
> > and simple queries can clearly differentiate the cases.
> >
> >
> > 2. Add "target branch/s" field to Attachments metadata (or if that's not
> > feasible, establish naming convention for Attachments to include this
> info)
> >
> > Motivation: Enable CI test-patch on patches targeted for non-trunk, as
> well
> > as make the target clear to human viewers.
> >
> > If this field can be added (I'm not sure Jira supports it), I suggest
> adding
> > it to the "Attach Files" dialogue box, and displaying it in the
> Attachments
> > and Manage Attachments views. If the Infra team says Jira can't support
> it,
> > then we (Hadoop dev) should talk about an unambiguous naming convention.
> >
> > If this meta-datum were available, it should be fairly easy to modify the
> > automated test-patch process to test each patch against its intended
> target
> > branch. (This process is managed internally by members of the Hadoop dev