Thanks Jeff. And I assume that the new features should only go to 3.x.
What about the backport process? For example, CASSANDRA-12941 is asking
for backport a fix, should that be accepted? I could argue that it's a
bug fix for Materialized View instead of new feature.
Thanks,
Jay
On 12/11/16 4:09 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
It depends on severity, but generally… If you find a bug in 3.0, you should
work back to 2.1 to see if it exists in older versions. We don’t put minor
fixes into 2.1 (or really 2.2 at this point) – 2.1 is critical fixes only, and
2.2 is getting to that point as well.
If it’s a minor minor bug, fix it in 3.0 and generate patches for versions
newer than that. If it’s a critical bug, go back to 2.1 and see if it exists
there as well.
On 12/10/16, 6:03 PM, "Jay Zhuang" <jay.zhu...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
I'm new to the community, sorry if it’s obvious question. Are there any
general guidance on choosing which branch we should start with? For
example, if I find a bug in 3.0, should I try to reproduce it in the
lowest version (2.1) and work from there?
Thanks,
Jay
On 12/8/16 10:29 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
The current branch merge path is, in full:
cassandra-2.1
|
cassandra-2.2
|
cassandra-3.0
|
cassandra-3.11
|
cassandra-3.X
|
trunk
Wherever you start, please follow through the complete path to trunk.
I reopened JIRAs #12768, #12817, and #12694 for skipping cassandra-3.11.
Owners of those tickets, please commit to the cassandra-3.11 branch and
merge up. There were too many conflicts for me to comfortably try to
resolve on a straight merge from 3.0.
