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

Switch to Threaded View
Pig >> mail # dev >> Re: Our release process

Copy link to this message
Re: Our release process
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]>
> 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]" <
>> *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]>
>> 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