I forgot one last night: >From Benjamin we have a question that I think went unanswered?
*> Should it not facilitate the work if the branch stops changing heavily?* This is IMO a good perspective. To me it seems weird to be too hung up on a "hard limit" on a specific day, when we are talking about merges where a single merge / rebase takes more than one day. We will have to stop merging smaller work to trunk anyway, when CEP-21 is being merged. No? henrik On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 3:24 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@datastax.com> wrote: > Trying to collect a few loose ends from across this thread > > *> I'm receptive to another definition of "stabilize", * > > I think the stabilization period implies more than just CI, which is > mostly a function of unit tests working correctly. For example, at Datastax > we have run a "large scale" test with >100 nodes, over several weeks, both > for 4.0 and 4.1. For obvious reasons such tests can't run in nightly CI > builds. > > Also it is not unusual that during the testing phase developers or > specialized QA engineers can develop new tests (which are possibly added to > CI) to improve coverage for and especially targeting new features in the > release. For example the fixes to Paxos v2 were found by such work before > 4.1. > > Finally, maybe it's a special case relevant only for this release, but as > a significant part of the Datastax team has been focused on porting these > large existing features from DSE, and to get them merged before the > original May date, we also have tens of bug fixes waiting to be upstreamed > too. (It used to be an even 100, but I'm unsure what the count is today.) > > In fact! If you are worried about how to occupy yourself between a May > "soft freeze" and September'ish hard freeze, you are welcome to chug on > that backlog. The bug fixes are already public and ASL licensed, in the 4.0 > based branch here <https://github.com/datastax/cassandra/commits/ds-trunk> > . > Failed with an unknown error. > > *> 3a. If we allow merge of CEP-15 / CEP-21 after branch, we risk > invalidating stabilization and risk our 2023 GA date* > > I think this is the assumption that I personally disagree with. If this is > true, why do we even bother running any CI before the CEP-21 merge? It will > all be invalidated anyway, right? > > In my experience, it is beneficial to test as early as possible, and at > different checkpoints during development. If we wouldn't do it, and we > find some issue in late November, then the window to search for the commit > that introduced the regression is all the way back to the 4.1 GA. If on the > other hand the same test was already rune during the soft freeze, then we > can know that we may focus our search onto CEP-15 and CEP-21. > > > *> get comfortable with cutting feature previews or snapshot alphas like > we agreed to for earlier access to new stuff* > > Snapshots are in fact a valid compromise proposal: A snapshot would > provide a constant version / point in time to focus testing on, but on the > other hand would allow trunk (or the 5.0 branch, in other proposals) to > remain open to new commits. Somewhat "invalidating" the testing work, but > presumably the branch will be relatively calm anyway. Which leads me to 2 > important questions: > > *WHO would be actively merging things into 5.0 during June-August? * > > By my count at that point I expect most contributors to either furiously > work on Acccord and TCM, or work on stabilization (tests, fixes). > > Also, if someone did contribute new feature code during this time, they > might find it hard to get priority for reviews, if others are focused on > the above tasks. > > Finally, I expect most Europeans to be on vacation 33% of that time. > Non-Europeans may want to try it too! > > > *WHAT do we expect to get merged during June-August?* > > Compared to the tens of thousands of lines of code being merged by Accord, > SAI, UCS and Tries... I imagine even the worst case during a non-freeze in > June-August would be just a tiny percentage of the large CEPs. > > In this thread I only see Paulo announcing an intent to commit against > trunk during a soft freeze, and even he agrees with a 5.0 branch freeze. > > This last question is basically a form of saying I hope we aren't > discussing a problem that doesn't even exist? > > henrik > > -- > > Henrik Ingo > > c. +358 40 569 7354 > > w. www.datastax.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/datastax> <https://twitter.com/datastax> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/datastax/> > <https://github.com/datastax/> > > -- Henrik Ingo c. +358 40 569 7354 w. www.datastax.com <https://www.facebook.com/datastax> <https://twitter.com/datastax> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/datastax/> <https://github.com/datastax/>
