drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Drill 1.19.0 - RC0
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:33:39 GMT
The release manager really should be deciding what makes the cut and what
does not.

That is the origin of the tradition of allowing any committer to be a
release manager. If somebody is unhappy about the content going into a
release, they can roll another release that meets their particular release.

Laurent is managing the 1.19 release and he should be managing it.

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:21 AM Laurent Goujon <laurent@dremio.com> wrote:

> I think you missed my point:
>
> - Not all bugs are equal and not all of them may cause to discard the
> current evaluation of a release candidate. There are currently 1631 open
> bugs for the project according to the Apache Drill JIRA: does it mean we
> should wait for all those bugs to be fixed before we can release? What
> makes this bug special compared to the others?
> - Assuming the previous point is cleared and that the bug should indeed be
> part of the release, it would be good to let the release manager handle it
> or at least coordinate with them instead of doing it on your own. That's
> usually what I've seen done in other projects and it seems to be a
> reasonable thing to do as the release manager might be already deep in
> patches merge and evaluation, and unexpected changes to the tree might
> cause extra work which could have been avoided. Or just because that's the
> respectful/polite thing to do...
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:11 PM luoc <luoc@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Laurent,
> >   Thanks for doing this. RC0 is no longer eligible for the next step
> > operation. It is a consensus that we cannot release a version with known
> > issues (the pull request mark as `bug`). In fact, Drill's release process
> > is not friendly, and we will put these discussion after the release. Now
> > our focus is on preparing for RC1. BTW, You're doing great.
> >
> > > 2021年6月4日 下午1:20,Laurent Goujon <laurent@dremio.com> 写道:
> > >
> > > You actually went ahead and merged those patches without waiting while
> I
> > > was hoping we could get some consensus first :(
> > >
> > > Can I just ask you to please respect the effort I'm putting in
> following
> > > what I think is the release process? If people think I'm not following
> > the
> > > proper steps or that I'm not doing a good job at doing it, I'll gladly
> > > accept feedback and will do my best to address it, but going over me
> > isn't
> > > helping me or the future volunteers for the next releases which might
> be
> > > also wondering what's the release process should be.
> > > Meanwhile I'll wait to get a review for the DRILL-7945 patch fixing the
> > > Guava regression, and hopefully I should be able to do another release
> > > candidate tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Laurent
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:46 PM luoc <luoc@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The DRILL-7945 blocked the release. So, I'm ready to merge the
> > DRILL-7937
> > >> and DRILL-7940 for bugfix.
> > >>
> > >>> 在 2021年6月4日,01:15,Laurent Goujon <laurent@dremio.com>
写道:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hey guys,
> > >>>
> > >>> Can we please stop changing the goal post again and again? The fact
> > that
> > >>> some of those pull requests are ready to merge should not be the sole
> > >>> consideration when to do a next release candidate.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've been asking several times on this mailing list about what we
> want
> > to
> > >>> include or not, and we got an agreement several times about it, and
> > >> several
> > >>> times we are now having this conversation.
> > >>> IMHO, I would not include DRILL-7941, DRILL-7942 and DRILL-7943:
> those
> > >> are
> > >>> new enhancements impacting Drill tests (not even the main product)
> and
> > I
> > >> do
> > >>> not understand the rush in making them part of the release.
> > Specifically
> > >>> for the JUnit 5 update, I think the change is misleading because it
> > looks
> > >>> like it's only the introduction of JUnit5 in one test class and
> > >> everything
> > >>> else still uses JUnit 4, so I would hardly call it an upgrade...
> > >>>
> > >>> As for DRILL-7937 and DRILL-7940, the issues were open in the last
3
> > days
> > >>> ago, but they do not seem to be regressions since 1.18.0, just gaps
> in
> > >> what
> > >>> Drill provides. Personally since we are this deep in the release, I
> > would
> > >>> also skip these one too. But if people have more contexts on those,
> > maybe
> > >>> we can agree they should be merged?
> > >>>
> > >>> Laurent
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:10 AM Charles Givre <cgivre@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There are like 5 minor PRs that are approved and awaiting merge.
> I'd
> > >> vote
> > >>>> that we include them.  Specifically:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> DRILL-7943: Update Hamcrest
> > >>>> DRILL-7942: Update Mockito
> > >>>> DRILL-7941: Update junit to 5.7.2
> > >>>> DRILL-7937:  Parquet decimal error
> > >>>> DRILL-7940: Fix Kafka Key
> > >>>>
> > >>>> These are all approved and can be merged.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- C
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> On Jun 3, 2021, at 9:01 AM, luoc <luoc@apache.org>
wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> DRILL-7940, too
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> 在 2021年6月3日,19:57,Charles Givre <cgivre@gmail.com>
写道:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -1 (Binding)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'd agree with Nick.  Drill-7937 should be included in
this
> release.
> > >>>>>> -- C
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Nick Stenroos-Dam <Nisd@project.bi>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Vote -1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can we please include  DRILL-7937
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

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