You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> on 2015/07/28 01:27:11 UTC
[DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Hi all,
Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or 0.10.x-branch.
Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch before
releasing 0.9.6.
I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be backported,
and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it can
be applied)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
There seems to be other approach:
- release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so that
let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
approach may be make sense.
I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
to. Taylor
I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each issue)
If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>.
I'm just done with backporting 4 issues to 0.10.x-branch.
- Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
2015-08-04 10:29 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> Good catch on storm-903.
>
> I'll take a closer look.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Aug 3, 2015, at 7:25 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all.
> >
> > I also think that it is really painful to backport something. That's why
> I
> > asked about what version lines we'll consider from other thread.
> > Seems like we're sure about releasing official version of 0.10.0 and
> > phasing out 0.9.x lines.
> > I'll backport bugfixes to only 0.10.x-branch and let you know when I
> > finished.
> >
> > Before start releasing 0.10.0, we may take a look at STORM-903
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-903>, which seems to be not
> > finished.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> >
> > 2015-08-04 5:36 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Thanks for putting together this list Jungtaek.
> >>
> >> Back-porting is a pain, and the more the 0.9.x, 0.10.x and master lines
> >> diverge, the harder it gets.
> >>
> >> I propose we back-port the 4 fixes you identified for the 0.10 branch,
> and
> >> start discussing releasing 0.10.0 (final, not beta).
> >>
> >> Once 0.10.0 is out, I think we can start phasing out the 0.9.x line. The
> >> idea was to continue to support 0.9.x while 0.10.0 stabilized and allow
> >> early upgraders had a chance to kick the tires and report any glaring
> >> issues. IMO more than enough time has passed and we should move forward
> >> with a 0.10.0 release.
> >>
> >> In terms of the who and when of back porting, the general principle I’ve
> >> followed is that once a patch has been merged, it is a candidate for
> >> back-porting, and that any committer can do that since the patch had
> >> already been reviewed and accepted. I don’t think a separate pull
> request
> >> is necessary. In fact, I think extra pull requests for back-porting
> makes
> >> JIRA/Github issues a little messy and confusing.
> >>
> >> IMO the only time we need back-port pull requests is:
> >>
> >> a) A non-committer contributor is requesting a patch be applied to an
> >> earlier version.
> >> b) A committer back-ported a patch with a lot of conflicts, and feels it
> >> warrants further review before committing. Basically a way of saying
> “This
> >> merge was messy. Could others check my work?”
> >>
> >> If things go wrong at any time, there’s always “git revert”.
> >>
> >> I don’t think we need to codify any of this in our BYLAWS unless there
> is
> >> some sort of conflict, which for now there isn’t. If we feel the need to
> >> document the process I feel documenting it README/wiki entry should
> >> suffice. I’m more in favor of mutual trust among committers than hard
> and
> >> fast rules. Once a particular practice gets formalized in our bylaws, it
> >> can be very difficult to change.
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Derek Dagit <derekd@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dealing with branches is a pain, and it is good we are paying attention
> >> to
> >>> back-porting. It is good to bring it up for discussion, and I agree
> >> checking
> >>> with those who do releases is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>
> >>> I do not think there are special restrictions on back-porting fixes to
> >> previous
> >>> branches. I would be comfortable with the normal rules for a pull
> >> request.
> >>>
> >>> Effort is one cost, and we could eventually run into some more
> >> challenging
> >>> merge conflicts as well. There are multiple things to consider, and I
> >> think it
> >>> is a judgment call.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, if it does become clear that clarifying principles
> >> helpful
> >>> in our BYLAWS, then I am all for it. If we commit to supporting
> specific
> >>> branches with certain kinds of fixes, then we need to stick to such a
> >>> commitment.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Derek
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <de...@storm.apache.org>
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:26 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
> >>>
> >>> Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug
> fixes
> >>> and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be
> a
> >>> huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best
> >>> solution for now.
> >>>
> >>> I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will
> >>> probably have to do release for each version where back porting was
> done
> >>> it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I
> >> agree
> >>> having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Parth
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
> >>>>
> >>>> I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and
> >> 0.9.x
> >>>> lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
> >>>> Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only
> >> thing
> >>>> I
> >>>> know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
> >>>> before doing back-port.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or
> >>>>> 0.10.x-branch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot
> of
> >>>>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch
> >>>>> before
> >>>>> releasing 0.9.6.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be
> >> backported,
> >>>>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions
> it
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> be applied)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq
> >>>>> 9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There seems to be other approach:
> >>>>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
> >>>>> approach may be make sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to. Taylor
> >>>>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each
> >>>>> issue)
> >>>>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Name : 임 정택
> >>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> >>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> >>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Name : 임 정택
> > Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> > Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>
--
Name : 임 정택
Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Good catch on storm-903.
I'll take a closer look.
-Taylor
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 7:25 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks all.
>
> I also think that it is really painful to backport something. That's why I
> asked about what version lines we'll consider from other thread.
> Seems like we're sure about releasing official version of 0.10.0 and
> phasing out 0.9.x lines.
> I'll backport bugfixes to only 0.10.x-branch and let you know when I
> finished.
>
> Before start releasing 0.10.0, we may take a look at STORM-903
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-903>, which seems to be not
> finished.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>
> 2015-08-04 5:36 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Thanks for putting together this list Jungtaek.
>>
>> Back-porting is a pain, and the more the 0.9.x, 0.10.x and master lines
>> diverge, the harder it gets.
>>
>> I propose we back-port the 4 fixes you identified for the 0.10 branch, and
>> start discussing releasing 0.10.0 (final, not beta).
>>
>> Once 0.10.0 is out, I think we can start phasing out the 0.9.x line. The
>> idea was to continue to support 0.9.x while 0.10.0 stabilized and allow
>> early upgraders had a chance to kick the tires and report any glaring
>> issues. IMO more than enough time has passed and we should move forward
>> with a 0.10.0 release.
>>
>> In terms of the who and when of back porting, the general principle I’ve
>> followed is that once a patch has been merged, it is a candidate for
>> back-porting, and that any committer can do that since the patch had
>> already been reviewed and accepted. I don’t think a separate pull request
>> is necessary. In fact, I think extra pull requests for back-porting makes
>> JIRA/Github issues a little messy and confusing.
>>
>> IMO the only time we need back-port pull requests is:
>>
>> a) A non-committer contributor is requesting a patch be applied to an
>> earlier version.
>> b) A committer back-ported a patch with a lot of conflicts, and feels it
>> warrants further review before committing. Basically a way of saying “This
>> merge was messy. Could others check my work?”
>>
>> If things go wrong at any time, there’s always “git revert”.
>>
>> I don’t think we need to codify any of this in our BYLAWS unless there is
>> some sort of conflict, which for now there isn’t. If we feel the need to
>> document the process I feel documenting it README/wiki entry should
>> suffice. I’m more in favor of mutual trust among committers than hard and
>> fast rules. Once a particular practice gets formalized in our bylaws, it
>> can be very difficult to change.
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Derek Dagit <de...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dealing with branches is a pain, and it is good we are paying attention
>> to
>>> back-porting. It is good to bring it up for discussion, and I agree
>> checking
>>> with those who do releases is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>
>>> I do not think there are special restrictions on back-porting fixes to
>> previous
>>> branches. I would be comfortable with the normal rules for a pull
>> request.
>>>
>>> Effort is one cost, and we could eventually run into some more
>> challenging
>>> merge conflicts as well. There are multiple things to consider, and I
>> think it
>>> is a judgment call.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if it does become clear that clarifying principles
>> helpful
>>> in our BYLAWS, then I am all for it. If we commit to supporting specific
>>> branches with certain kinds of fixes, then we need to stick to such a
>>> commitment.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Derek
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>
>>> To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <de...@storm.apache.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:26 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
>>>
>>> Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug fixes
>>> and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be a
>>> huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best
>>> solution for now.
>>>
>>> I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will
>>> probably have to do release for each version where back porting was done
>>> it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I
>> agree
>>> having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Parth
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
>>>>
>>>> I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and
>> 0.9.x
>>>> lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
>>>> Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only
>> thing
>>>> I
>>>> know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
>>>>
>>>> Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
>>>> before doing back-port.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or
>>>>> 0.10.x-branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
>>>>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch
>>>>> before
>>>>> releasing 0.9.6.
>>>>>
>>>>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be
>> backported,
>>>>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it
>>>>> can
>>>>> be applied)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq
>>>>> 9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
>>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be other approach:
>>>>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so
>>>>> that
>>>>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
>>>>> approach may be make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>
>>>>> to. Taylor
>>>>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each
>>>>> issue)
>>>>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Name : 임 정택
>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Name : 임 정택
> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>.
Thanks all.
I also think that it is really painful to backport something. That's why I
asked about what version lines we'll consider from other thread.
Seems like we're sure about releasing official version of 0.10.0 and
phasing out 0.9.x lines.
I'll backport bugfixes to only 0.10.x-branch and let you know when I
finished.
Before start releasing 0.10.0, we may take a look at STORM-903
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-903>, which seems to be not
finished.
Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
2015-08-04 5:36 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> Thanks for putting together this list Jungtaek.
>
> Back-porting is a pain, and the more the 0.9.x, 0.10.x and master lines
> diverge, the harder it gets.
>
> I propose we back-port the 4 fixes you identified for the 0.10 branch, and
> start discussing releasing 0.10.0 (final, not beta).
>
> Once 0.10.0 is out, I think we can start phasing out the 0.9.x line. The
> idea was to continue to support 0.9.x while 0.10.0 stabilized and allow
> early upgraders had a chance to kick the tires and report any glaring
> issues. IMO more than enough time has passed and we should move forward
> with a 0.10.0 release.
>
> In terms of the who and when of back porting, the general principle I’ve
> followed is that once a patch has been merged, it is a candidate for
> back-porting, and that any committer can do that since the patch had
> already been reviewed and accepted. I don’t think a separate pull request
> is necessary. In fact, I think extra pull requests for back-porting makes
> JIRA/Github issues a little messy and confusing.
>
> IMO the only time we need back-port pull requests is:
>
> a) A non-committer contributor is requesting a patch be applied to an
> earlier version.
> b) A committer back-ported a patch with a lot of conflicts, and feels it
> warrants further review before committing. Basically a way of saying “This
> merge was messy. Could others check my work?”
>
> If things go wrong at any time, there’s always “git revert”.
>
> I don’t think we need to codify any of this in our BYLAWS unless there is
> some sort of conflict, which for now there isn’t. If we feel the need to
> document the process I feel documenting it README/wiki entry should
> suffice. I’m more in favor of mutual trust among committers than hard and
> fast rules. Once a particular practice gets formalized in our bylaws, it
> can be very difficult to change.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Derek Dagit <de...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dealing with branches is a pain, and it is good we are paying attention
> to
> > back-porting. It is good to bring it up for discussion, and I agree
> checking
> > with those who do releases is a reasonable thing to do.
> >
> > I do not think there are special restrictions on back-porting fixes to
> previous
> > branches. I would be comfortable with the normal rules for a pull
> request.
> >
> > Effort is one cost, and we could eventually run into some more
> challenging
> > merge conflicts as well. There are multiple things to consider, and I
> think it
> > is a judgment call.
> >
> > On the other hand, if it does become clear that clarifying principles
> helpful
> > in our BYLAWS, then I am all for it. If we commit to supporting specific
> > branches with certain kinds of fixes, then we need to stick to such a
> > commitment.
> >
> > --
> > Derek
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>
> > To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <de...@storm.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
> >
> > Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug fixes
> > and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be a
> > huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best
> > solution for now.
> >
> > I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will
> > probably have to do release for each version where back porting was done
> > it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I
> agree
> > having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Parth
> >
> >
> > On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
> >>
> >> I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and
> 0.9.x
> >> lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
> >> Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only
> thing
> >> I
> >> know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
> >>
> >> Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
> >> before doing back-port.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or
> >>> 0.10.x-branch.
> >>>
> >>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
> >>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch
> >>> before
> >>> releasing 0.9.6.
> >>>
> >>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be
> backported,
> >>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it
> >>> can
> >>> be applied)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq
> >>> 9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
> >>>
> >>> There seems to be other approach:
> >>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so
> >>> that
> >>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
> >>>
> >>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
> >>> approach may be make sense.
> >>>
> >>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>
> >>> to. Taylor
> >>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each
> >>> issue)
> >>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Name : 임 정택
> >> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> >> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> >> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>
>
--
Name : 임 정택
Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for putting together this list Jungtaek.
Back-porting is a pain, and the more the 0.9.x, 0.10.x and master lines diverge, the harder it gets.
I propose we back-port the 4 fixes you identified for the 0.10 branch, and start discussing releasing 0.10.0 (final, not beta).
Once 0.10.0 is out, I think we can start phasing out the 0.9.x line. The idea was to continue to support 0.9.x while 0.10.0 stabilized and allow early upgraders had a chance to kick the tires and report any glaring issues. IMO more than enough time has passed and we should move forward with a 0.10.0 release.
In terms of the who and when of back porting, the general principle I’ve followed is that once a patch has been merged, it is a candidate for back-porting, and that any committer can do that since the patch had already been reviewed and accepted. I don’t think a separate pull request is necessary. In fact, I think extra pull requests for back-porting makes JIRA/Github issues a little messy and confusing.
IMO the only time we need back-port pull requests is:
a) A non-committer contributor is requesting a patch be applied to an earlier version.
b) A committer back-ported a patch with a lot of conflicts, and feels it warrants further review before committing. Basically a way of saying “This merge was messy. Could others check my work?”
If things go wrong at any time, there’s always “git revert”.
I don’t think we need to codify any of this in our BYLAWS unless there is some sort of conflict, which for now there isn’t. If we feel the need to document the process I feel documenting it README/wiki entry should suffice. I’m more in favor of mutual trust among committers than hard and fast rules. Once a particular practice gets formalized in our bylaws, it can be very difficult to change.
-Taylor
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Derek Dagit <de...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Dealing with branches is a pain, and it is good we are paying attention to
> back-porting. It is good to bring it up for discussion, and I agree checking
> with those who do releases is a reasonable thing to do.
>
> I do not think there are special restrictions on back-porting fixes to previous
> branches. I would be comfortable with the normal rules for a pull request.
>
> Effort is one cost, and we could eventually run into some more challenging
> merge conflicts as well. There are multiple things to consider, and I think it
> is a judgment call.
>
> On the other hand, if it does become clear that clarifying principles helpful
> in our BYLAWS, then I am all for it. If we commit to supporting specific
> branches with certain kinds of fixes, then we need to stick to such a
> commitment.
>
> --
> Derek
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>
> To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <de...@storm.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
>
> Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug fixes
> and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be a
> huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best
> solution for now.
>
> I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will
> probably have to do release for each version where back porting was done
> it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I agree
> having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future.
>
> Thanks
> Parth
>
>
> On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
>>
>> I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and 0.9.x
>> lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
>> Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only thing
>> I
>> know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
>>
>> Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
>> before doing back-port.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>>
>> 2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or
>>> 0.10.x-branch.
>>>
>>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
>>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch
>>> before
>>> releasing 0.9.6.
>>>
>>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be backported,
>>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it
>>> can
>>> be applied)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq
>>> 9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
>>>
>>> There seems to be other approach:
>>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so
>>> that
>>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
>>>
>>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
>>> approach may be make sense.
>>>
>>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>
>>> to. Taylor
>>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each
>>> issue)
>>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Name : 임 정택
>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by Derek Dagit <de...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
Dealing with branches is a pain, and it is good we are paying attention to
back-porting. It is good to bring it up for discussion, and I agree checking
with those who do releases is a reasonable thing to do.
I do not think there are special restrictions on back-porting fixes to previous
branches. I would be comfortable with the normal rules for a pull request.
Effort is one cost, and we could eventually run into some more challenging
merge conflicts as well. There are multiple things to consider, and I think it
is a judgment call.
On the other hand, if it does become clear that clarifying principles helpful
in our BYLAWS, then I am all for it. If we commit to supporting specific
branches with certain kinds of fixes, then we need to stick to such a
commitment.
--
Derek
----- Original Message -----
From: Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>
To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <de...@storm.apache.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug fixes
and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be a
huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best
solution for now.
I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will
probably have to do release for each version where back porting was done
it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I agree
having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future.
Thanks
Parth
On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
>
>I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and 0.9.x
>lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
>Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only thing
>I
>know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
>
>Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
>before doing back-port.
>
>Thanks,
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>
>2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or
>>0.10.x-branch.
>>
>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch
>>before
>> releasing 0.9.6.
>>
>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be backported,
>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it
>>can
>> be applied)
>>
>>
>>
>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq
>>9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
>>
>> There seems to be other approach:
>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so
>>that
>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
>>
>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
>> approach may be make sense.
>>
>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>> to. Taylor
>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each
>>issue)
>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Name : 임 정택
>Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>.
Given how huge 0.10 release was I feel trying to back port all bug fixes
and testing that it does not brake something else might turn out to be a
huge PITA. I think going with a stable 0.10 release might be the best
solution for now.
I don’t think back porting requires confirmation however given we will
probably have to do release for each version where back porting was done
it is probably best to notify Release manager and discuss options. I agree
having a rule/bylaw would help clarify things for future.
Thanks
Parth
On 8/2/15, 4:30 PM, "임정택" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
>
>I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and 0.9.x
>lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
>Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only thing
>I
>know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
>
>Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
>before doing back-port.
>
>Thanks,
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>
>2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or
>>0.10.x-branch.
>>
>> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
>> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch
>>before
>> releasing 0.9.6.
>>
>> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be backported,
>> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it
>>can
>> be applied)
>>
>>
>>
>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq
>>9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
>>
>> There seems to be other approach:
>> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so
>>that
>> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
>>
>> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
>> approach may be make sense.
>>
>> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>> to. Taylor
>> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each
>>issue)
>> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Name : 임 정택
>Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Backport bugfixes (to 0.10.x / 0.9.x)
Posted by 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>.
Bump. Does anyone have opinions about this?
I already did back-port some bugfixes (not in list) into 0.10.x and 0.9.x
lines, but I'm not 100% sure that it is preferred way.
Seems like we don't have explicit rules about doing back-port. Only thing I
know is Taylor was (or has been) a gatekeeper.
Now I really want to know that it still need to be confirmed by Taylor
before doing back-port.
Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
2015-07-28 8:27 GMT+09:00 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently I see many bugfixes are only merged to master, or 0.10.x-branch.
>
> Since 0.10.0-beta1 introduces huge changeset, and it contains a lot of
> bugfixes, I think we can consider backporting them to 0.9.x-branch before
> releasing 0.9.6.
>
> I create a sheet and write down bugfix issues which could be backported,
> and status of issue. (what versions it is applied, and what versions it can
> be applied)
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KQrOlqk1hlE2oDmXFY34lJaY0PU7V5uxq9U1vfIhLq4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Please let me know whenever you find missing spots or wrong contents.
>
> There seems to be other approach:
> - release stable version of 0.10.0, and drop plan to release 0.9.6 so that
> let all users who want bugfix release move to 0.10.0
>
> Since a lot of bugfix issues are waiting for backporting, alternative
> approach may be make sense.
>
> I'm open to hear any thoughts, so please share your opinions.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> to. Taylor
> I don't know I can do backport without your confirmation. (by each issue)
> If you want to decide about backporting yourself, I'll follow you.
>
--
Name : 임 정택
Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior