Here’s a couple things I’d like to avoid: 1) Issuing a patch release for every single commit that we back port onto a supported minor version. This seems like a high cost approach. Of course, some issues may be important enough to require that.
2) Merging a change to develop, and then having to come back weeks later and back porting the change to a release branch. It just seems less optimal since I’ll have lost the context on the changes, particularly if the cherry-pick is non-trivial. More comments below. Anthony > On Feb 24, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, currently we don’t start a patch release until someone proposes > a critical fix, which then drives the release (the community may propose > “extra” fixes to tag along once a release branch is cut). This keeps the > process simple, neat and tidy. > > Another option I hadn’t thought of is to begin collecting “extra” fixes > proactively on a “dormant” branch, so that when someone finally proposes > releasing a patch, it will already be primed with a bunch of fixes. This > adds complexity (does a different standard apply to bring fixes to a dormant > branch? Are release branches separate from support branches? How will > committers be able to keep track of what is dormant and what is not?) > Why not just either a) keep the release branch alive? Or b) create a support branch from the release tag? > To implement an N-2 support policy, does it make more sense for Geode to make > small focused patch releases when needed, or to maintain what amounts to “3 > develop branches at all times”? > To me, “develop branch” implies ongoing work. I’m proposing “support branch” which means only important changes agreed upon by the project community. > >> On Feb 24, 2020, at 11:00 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> Thanks for proposing this, Anthony! >> >> >>> I don’t think it’s necessary for this proposal to re-define or clarify >>> what constitutes a critical fix; it sounds like the bar would be the same >>> as the standard we already apply when back-porting to release branches >>> (proposal /w justification, and 3 votes in favor). The only difference >>> seems to be that now proposals may list up to three target branches, not >>> just one. >>> >> re: Owen >> TL;DR: +1 using the same process as we use for merging critical fixes >> during an ongoing release seems appropriate. >> >> Generally merging a fix to a dormant release branch seems less problematic >> than merging a fix to an active release branch where a merge will reset all >> release work that has already happened. The cost of merging to a >> dormant release branch is much lower than merging to one that's being >> actively released. Ideally we could just do a PR to merge fixes back in >> most cases. Unfortunately, I believe it's unreasonable to expect that >> everyone will be aware at all times what's actively being released and >> what's not => Let's pretend we are always shipping these branches. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 7:35 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Anthony for proposing this “N-2” support policy. It isn’t a big >>> change, but it is helpful to know that the Geode PMC will now be standing >>> behind (and ready to vote on) patch releases within a 9-month window. >>> >>> Overall, this sounds much like how 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 started as community >>> proposals, found a release manager, and went on to be successfully released. >>> >>> I don’t think it’s necessary for this proposal to re-define or clarify >>> what constitutes a critical fix; it sounds like the bar would be the same >>> as the standard we already apply when back-porting to release branches >>> (proposal /w justification, and 3 votes in favor). The only difference >>> seems to be that now proposals may list up to three target branches, not >>> just one. >>> >>> I also don’t think it’s necessary to alter our current process to maintain >>> a standing "support/x.y" branch. The proposal states that patch releases >>> will be “ad-hoc (as needed)”. Our current process serves this quite well: >>> we propose a patch release at the time it is needed, then get a release >>> manager and create a release branch specifically for that release (e.g. >>> release/1.9.2 was created from the rel/v1.9.1 tag), then clean up >>> afterwards so no unattended pipelines or branches linger. >>> >>> The rotating release manager role has been a hallmark of the Geode >>> community process, so I hope this proposal will not dissuade anyone >>> interested in helping with a release. However, getting the automation >>> improvements we need will require some continuity over several releases. I >>> would love to volunteer for this! >>> >>> -Owen >>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose shipping patch releases of Geode as a way to >>>> improve our engagement and support of our user community. Please >>>> review the details in the linked RFC [1] and kindly offer your >>>> thoughts in this thread. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Anthony >>>> >>>> [1] >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Shipping+patch+releases >>> >>> >
