<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Kaushal M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kshlmster@gmail.com" target="_blank">kshlmster@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm in favour of a stable release every 2 months and an LTS once a<br>
year (option 2).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
As Oleksander already suggested, I'm in favour of having well defined<br>
merge windows, freeze dates and testing period.<br>
(A slightly modified timeline from Oleksander's proposal follows)<br>
For every 2 month window,<br>
- 1 month of development (merge window). New features will not be<br>
accepted post this period.<br>
- At the end of the development period a release-candidate 1 is tagged.<br>
- A 1 month testing/bug-fixing window follows. This time is for<br>
testing and fixing bugs found.<br>
Feature development and reviews can happen during this period on<br>
gerrit, but nothing gets merged. Merges will be held till the next<br>
merge window.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This means the branching is not done at the end of merge window and the patches will not be merged even on the master branch. Is that right?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- At least 2 more release-candidates will be release once every fortnight<br>
- The final release-candidate becomes the release if it passes all our tests.<br>
<br>
One of the 6 releases of the year will become a LTS release.<br>
The 2 month window for this release will mainly be targeted at making<br>
the release stable.<br>
New features should be minimal for this release.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I really like this point. Taking 3.8 as a LTS release this would mean new features for 3.14 release would not be encouraged.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
During every 2 month window, the LTS release will get any required bug<br>
fixes and stability improvements backported.<br>
For fix to be backported it needs to be present in a stable release.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
~kaushal<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Atin Mukherjee <<a href="mailto:amukherj@redhat.com">amukherj@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> A bit late but better than never. My vote is for option 2.<br>
><br>
> ~Atin<br>
><br>
> On 05/18/2016 07:19 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:<br>
>> [Adding gluster-users]<br>
>><br>
>> I would like to wrap this poll by the next community meeting on 25th<br>
>> May. Can you please weigh in with your opinions on the options<br>
>> provided by Aravinda?<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks!<br>
>> Vijay<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Aravinda <<a href="mailto:avishwan@redhat.com">avishwan@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Based on the discussion in last community meeting and previous discussions,<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Too frequent releases are difficult to manage.(without dedicated release<br>
>>> manager)<br>
>>> 2. Users wants to see features early for testing or POC.<br>
>>> 3. Backporting patches to more than two release branches is pain<br>
>>><br>
>>> Enclosed visualizations to understand existing release and support cycle and<br>
>>> proposed alternatives.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - Each grid interval is 6 months<br>
>>> - Green rectangle shows supported release or LTS<br>
>>> - Black dots are minor releases till it is supported(once a month)<br>
>>> - Orange rectangle is non LTS release with minor releases(Support ends when<br>
>>> next version released)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Enclosed following images<br>
>>> 1. Existing Release cycle and support plan(6 months release cycle, 3<br>
>>> releases supported all the time)<br>
>>> 2. Proposed alternative 1 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable release<br>
>>> once in every 2 months<br>
>>> 3. Proposed alternative 2 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable release<br>
>>> once in every 3 months<br>
>>> 4. Proposed alternative 3 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable release<br>
>>> once in every 4 months<br>
>>> 5. Proposed alternative 4 - One LTS every year and non LTS stable release<br>
>>> once in every 6 months (Similar to existing but only alternate one will<br>
>>> become LTS)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Please do vote for the proposed alternatives about release intervals and LTS<br>
>>> releases. You can also vote for the existing plan.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Do let me know if I missed anything.<br>
>>><br>
>>> regards<br>
>>> Aravinda<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 05/11/2016 12:01 AM, Aravinda wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I couldn't find any solution for the backward incompatible changes. As you<br>
>>> mentioned this model will not work for LTS.<br>
>>><br>
>>> How about adopting this only for non LTS releases? We will not have backward<br>
>>> incompatibility problem since we need not release minor updates to non LTS<br>
>>> releases.<br>
>>><br>
>>> regards<br>
>>> Aravinda<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 05/05/2016 04:46 PM, Aravinda wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> regards<br>
>>> Aravinda<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 05/05/2016 03:54 PM, Kaushal M wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aravinda <<a href="mailto:avishwan@redhat.com">avishwan@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sharing an idea to manage multiple releases without maintaining<br>
>>> multiple release branches and backports.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This idea is heavily inspired by the Rust release model(you may feel<br>
>>> exactly same except the LTS part). I think Chrome/Firefox also follows<br>
>>> the same model.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Feature Flag:<br>
>>> --------------<br>
>>> Compile time variable to prevent compiling featurerelated code when<br>
>>> disabled. (For example, ./configure--disable-geo-replication<br>
>>> or ./configure --disable-xml etc)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Plan<br>
>>> -----<br>
>>> - Nightly build with all the features enabled(./build --nightly)<br>
>>><br>
>>> - All new patches will land in Master, if the patch belongs to a<br>
>>> existing feature then it should be written behind that feature flag.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - If a feature is still work in progress then it will be only enabled in<br>
>>> nightly build and not enabled in beta or stable builds.<br>
>>> Once the maintainer thinks the feature is ready for testing then that<br>
>>> feature will be enabled in beta build.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - Every 6 weeks, beta branch will be created by enabling all the<br>
>>> features which maintainers thinks it is stable and previous beta<br>
>>> branch will be promoted as stable.<br>
>>> All the previous beta features will be enabled in stable unless it<br>
>>> is marked as unstable during beta testing.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - LTS builds are same as stable builds but without enabling all the<br>
>>> features. If we decide last stable build will become LTS release,<br>
>>> then the feature list from last stable build will be saved as<br>
>>> `features-release-<NUM>.yaml`, For example:<br>
>>> features-release-3.9.yaml`<br>
>>> Same feature list will be used while building minor releases for the<br>
>>> LTS. For example, `./build --stable --features features-release-3.8.yaml`<br>
>>><br>
>>> - Three branches, nightly/master, testing/beta, stable<br>
>>><br>
>>> To summarize,<br>
>>> - One stable release once in 6 weeks<br>
>>> - One Beta release once in 6 weeks<br>
>>> - Nightly builds every day<br>
>>> - LTS release once in 6 months or 1 year, Minor releases once in 6 weeks.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Advantageous:<br>
>>> -------------<br>
>>> 1. No more backports required to different release branches.(only<br>
>>> exceptional backports, discussed below)<br>
>>> 2. Non feature Bugfix will never get missed in releases.<br>
>>> 3. Release process can be automated.<br>
>>> 4. Bugzilla process can be simplified.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Challenges:<br>
>>> ------------<br>
>>> 1. Enforcing Feature flag for every patch<br>
>>> 2. Tests also should be behind feature flag<br>
>>> 3. New release process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Backports, Bug Fixes and Features:<br>
>>> ----------------------------------<br>
>>> - Release bug fix - Patch only to Master, which will be available in<br>
>>> next beta/stable build.<br>
>>> - Urgent bug fix - Patch to Master and Backport to beta and stable<br>
>>> branch, and early release stable and beta build.<br>
>>> - Beta bug fix - Patch to Master and Backport to Beta branch if urgent.<br>
>>> - Security fix - Patch to Master, Beta and last stable branch and build<br>
>>> all LTS releases.<br>
>>> - Features - Patch only to Master, which will be available in<br>
>>> stable/beta builds once feature becomes stable.<br>
>>><br>
>>> FAQs:<br>
>>> -----<br>
>>> - Can a feature development take more than one release cycle(6 weeks)?<br>
>>> Yes, the feature will be enabled only in nightly build and not in<br>
>>> beta/stable builds. Once the feature is complete mark it as<br>
>>> stable so that it will be included in next beta build and stable<br>
>>> build.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ---<br>
>>><br>
>>> Do you like the idea? Let me know what you guys think.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This reduces the number of versions that we need to maintain, which I like.<br>
>>> Having official test (beta) releases should help get features out to<br>
>>> testers hand faster,<br>
>>> and get quicker feedback.<br>
>>><br>
>>> One thing that's still not quite clear to is the issue of backwards<br>
>>> compatibility.<br>
>>> I'm still thinking it thorough and don't have a proper answer to this yet.<br>
>>> Would a new release be backwards compatible with the previous release?<br>
>>> Should we be maintaining compatibility with LTS releases with the<br>
>>> latest release?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Each LTS release will have seperate list of features to be enabled. If we<br>
>>> make any breaking changes(which are not backward compatible) then it will<br>
>>> affect LTS releases as you mentioned. But we should not break compatibility<br>
>>> unless it is major version change like 4.0. I have to workout how we can<br>
>>> handle backward incompatible changes.<br>
>>><br>
>>> With our current strategy, we at least have a long term release branch,<br>
>>> so we get some guarantees of compatibility with releases on the same branch.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As I understand the proposed approach, we'd be replacing a stable<br>
>>> branch with the beta branch.<br>
>>> So we don't have a long-term release branch (apart from LTS).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Stable branch is common for LTS releases also. Builds will be different<br>
>>> using different list of features.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Below example shows stable release once in 6 weeks, and two LTS releases in<br>
>>> 6 months gap(3.8 and 3.12)<br>
>>><br>
>>> LTS 1 : 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4 3.8.5...<br>
>>> LTS 2 : 3.12 3.12.1...<br>
>>> Stable: 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13...<br>
>>><br>
>>> A user would be upgrading from one branch to another for every release.<br>
>>> Can we sketch out how compatibility would work in this case?<br>
>>><br>
>>> User will not upgrade from one branch to other branch, If user interested in<br>
>>> stable channel then upgrade once in 6 weeks. (Same as minor update in<br>
>>> current release style)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> This approach work well for projects like Chromium and Firefox, single<br>
>>> system apps<br>
>>> which generally don't need to be compatible with the previous release.<br>
>>> I don't understand how the Rust project uses this (I am yet to read<br>
>>> the linked blog post),<br>
>>> as it requires some sort of backwards compatibility. But it too is a<br>
>>> single system app,<br>
>>> and doesn't have the compatibility problems we face.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Gluster is a distributed system, that can involve multiple different<br>
>>> versions interacting with each other.<br>
>>> This is something we need to think about.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I need to think about compatibility, What new problems about the<br>
>>> compatibility with this approach compared to our existing release plan?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> We could work out some sort of a solution for this though.<br>
>>> It might be something very obvious I'm missing right now.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ~kaushal<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> regards<br>
>>> Aravinda<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Gluster-users mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>