asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chen Li <che...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] stabilization phase
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:12:32 GMT
We need a "global picture" about what are the issues, and who are on what.
We can discuss this topic during the weekly meeting today.  We can have a
longer discussion when Till is here on Monday.

Chen

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Khurram Faraaz <khfaraaz82@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> This will definitely help. Identify and Fix the major issues and that way
> New Features will be much better. Otherwise, new features on top known
> issues is risky.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed on all points...!
> >
> >
> > On 11/19/15 1:27 PM, Yingyi Bu wrote:
> >
> >> IMO, the investment for stabilization would greatly speed-up future
> >> innovations and experiments (if we manage to fix all the major/critical
> >> issues by the end of that phase).
> >> Everyone could face way less blocking issues and need way less hacks to
> >> get
> >> things work or grab experimental results:-)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Yingyi
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> My main goal it to get the number of painful issues down and I agree
> that
> >>> that doesn’t require that everything else stops. However, I think that
> it
> >>> is likely take some toll on innovation as some time would be spent on
> >>> fixing issues and merging fixes into the feature branches ..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 12:18, Mike Carey wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 --- but --- to be clear, I don't think this is proposing an
> >>>
> >>>> every-hand-stops-innovating phase.  I think the proposal is for a mode
> >>>> where MASTER is locked down and all folks do try and fix their higher
> >>>> priority bugs on a weekly basis - but that folks who're working on
> >>>> separate
> >>>> things (e.g., spatial index performance or BAD approaches to data
> >>>> handling)
> >>>> would still do that, just not in master (which isn't where it's
> >>>> happening
> >>>> anyway).  Master would be closed for business until all "Major" and
> >>>> above
> >>>> bugs are indeed fixed.  (Because that's where we'll cut release
> branches
> >>>> from, and that needs to be stabilized.)  @Till, is that a correct
> >>>> understanding?  Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/19/15 10:49 AM, Ian Maxon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1. Our tests need a lot of work, so putting new features on the back
> >>>>> burner will definitely help with getting that work done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:43 AM, abdullah alamoudi <
> >>>>> bamousaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ++1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Yingyi Bu <buyingyi@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Yingyi
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> there are a number of discussions (on and off list)
and other
> >>>>>>>> indicators
> >>>>>>>> (people on the users list not getting ahead) that we
have a
> >>>>>>>> relatively
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> big
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> number of issues that affect both the usability (and adoption)
of
> the
> >>>>>>>> system and the productivity of development.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think that it would be good to move into a stabilization
phase
> >>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>> while. In such a phase we would focus on addressing
known issues
> and
> >>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>> add new features to master is there is broad agreement
(on this
> >>>>>>>> list)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the feature is an exception. The goal of the phase would
be to
> >>>>>>>> address
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> issues of priority “Major” and above (with the option
of agreeing
> on
> >>>>>>>> de-prioritizing issues …) and to increase test coverage.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts? Concerns? Questions?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Till
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> P.S. I think that the 0.8.8 release should not be affected
by
> >>>>>>>> entering
> >>>>>>>> such a phase.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message