From dev-return-2851-apmail-asterixdb-dev-archive=asterixdb.apache.org@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org Fri Nov 20 16:12:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-asterixdb-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-asterixdb-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 721DF1872F for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 33679 invoked by uid 500); 20 Nov 2015 16:12:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-asterixdb-dev-archive@asterixdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 33616 invoked by uid 500); 20 Nov 2015 16:12:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 32917 invoked by uid 99); 20 Nov 2015 16:12:35 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:12:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 43AFE180AA3 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:12:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.879 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.879 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JIIDsS6RZUIL for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (mail-oi0-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2A41B429AA for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oies6 with SMTP id s6so67949860oie.1 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:12:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=bhFPOV4gG1ULHIhWt00t8//hkdXWytZT4DlJ5FmVz90=; b=X7XzMtM7afxz0LAQFacVG7PXRkuRNssDAqHqYgDyHmzqovXorKWpmSTBfTEBb4B2hP y/KZs3zIAiewo3w4b4CF5kJT3nvQtifuOMQU/Rua+yZ/eHESvM4lxdoX7mZNpLESvsCH 4QjXILa1Oz1tuytBRI7bLZVtBA0XFNuuhbCVwQYuvxU5jrlsjWrkJFMTrXBuZKnsgBTB u6rVtfSRQIHJ1ttPEx4cndEKPJQc01Z2lJxIQY5jTrYzxFV7IHo7kny3GuCczOn+SHtu DbSag5RJW9XJproD5rRK271s6UZungNEbWQuclrmsk8/RLZkjzMoMZbPHaSHgAY6l4xA BEsQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.77.136 with SMTP id a130mr7918768oib.123.1448035952633; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.69.214 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:12:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <65CA303A-2CF9-450A-A42F-B667FCB4EA4E@apache.org> <564E2E7A.8080404@gmail.com> <16295EAD-5C55-4991-9240-A368D6AD9028@apache.org> <564E4608.7000405@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:12:32 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] stabilization phase From: Chen Li To: dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134e888942c470524fb2455 --001a1134e888942c470524fb2455 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 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/critica= l > >> issues by the end of that phase). > >> Everyone could face way less blocking issues and need way less hacks t= o > >> get > >> things work or grab experimental results:-) > >> > >> Best, > >> Yingyi > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Till Westmann > wrote: > >> > >> My main goal it to get the number of painful issues down and I agree > that > >>> that doesn=E2=80=99t require that everything else stops. However, I t= hink 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 mo= de > >>>> where MASTER is locked down and all folks do try and fix their highe= r > >>>> 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 bac= k > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1! > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Yingyi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Till Westmann > >>>>>>> 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 =E2=80=9CMajor=E2=80=9D and above (with the op= tion of agreeing > on > >>>>>>>> de-prioritizing issues =E2=80=A6) 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > > --001a1134e888942c470524fb2455--