Hi, Just as a reminder, I think we should not focus here on discussing whether or not time-based releases is a suitable release model for us. That doesn’t seem to be the original intent of this thread, and is therefore more suited for a separate discussion with the community, especially taking into account that the time-based release model was agreed upon by the community in the past.
Regarding the definition and importance of feature freeze, I simply want to re-emphasize what Stephan, Timo, and Piotr had already mentioned. A big part of a feature freeze is to let the new features and changes settle down and allow the community to establish meaningful testing efforts over a period of time, and drive the feature freeze release branch towards a releasable state. With that in mind, specifically for FLINK-13225, I’m personally in favor of reverting the changes in the release-1.9 branch. We have always allowed for flexibility (after informed discussions with the community) throughout the release testing phase, even in previous major releases. But in this case, since we are already way past feature freeze (June 28th) and that the first official voting RC for release was already expected to be created very soon by the end of this week [1], IMO it is dangerous to include them now as it potentially invalidates the testing efforts so far from other community members. Cheers, Gordon [1] http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/ANNOUNCE-Progress-updates-for-Apache-Flink-1-9-0-release-tp30565p31426.html On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:25 AM Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> wrote: > Hi Xuefu, > > As others have mentioned, time based releases were decided because of some > good reasons (more predictability for users so that they can take that into > account for planning next upgrades). That doesn’t mean we can not allow for > some flexibility: we do, we have already postponed this feature freeze by > at least a couple of weeks. If we start postponing it more, that will > overlap with next release. > > However the key point is that feature freeze is also there for very good > reason: to make sure that release will be stable. Because of that, as > Stephan wrote we can not merge features (especially big ones) to the > release branch as we wish since some features: > 1. just need some time exposure on the CI to discover intermittent issues > 2. need to have specific pre releases tests planned > 3. if we have already done some pre releases tests on a RC candidate, If > we merge new feature after that, those tests might be invalid > > I fully agree with Stephan (as it was already discussed in "Merging PR to > release branches during RC voting” mailing list thread [1]), that merging > things to the release branch should be strictly coordinated with the > release manager. This doesn’t mean that your feature will not make it to > the given release, but just inform the release manager, discuss it and make > an informed decision. Even for this release, there were examples were we > merged something to release branch after the feature freeze after > discussing it with the release manager. > > Piotrek > > [1] > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/Merging-PR-to-release-branches-during-RC-voting-td22461.html > < > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/Merging-PR-to-release-branches-during-RC-voting-td22461.html> > > > > On 8 Aug 2019, at 20:10, Xuefu Z <usxu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Timo, > > > > Thanks for sharing your opinion. By wastefulness, I meant we had planned > > and done much work ending up with not being useful in the released > product. > > Instead of making many partial features, we'd rather make fewer but > > complete features. We expected a good integration with Hive in 1.9, but > for > > one reason or another, the scope was reduced over and over again. This is > > rather frustrating. > > > > As to whether the PR was planned, I'd say yes because it's what Hive > > Integration needed and Hive integration plan clearly had the feature of > > supporting Hive UDF. > > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > Thanks for your opinions as well. As to time-based release, if it's a > > general guideline I think it's fine. However, I think certain planning > and > > flexibility wouldn't hurt. Theoretically, we could have nothing new or > > complete to release when the scheduled timer hits. In this case, it > > probably makes sense to delay the release until a meaningful release is > > there. We cannot so de-emphasize the value of the planning as well > because > > that's where we set up goals of solving certain user problems or meeting > > some business goals. If we are too far off the original expectation, it > > might make sense to have some flexibility on timing. > > > > Anyway, all I have said was about how we balance between timely releasing > > and maintaining some criteria on what would be released, not about > > downplaying the virtue of time-based releasing. > > > > Thanks, > > Xuefu > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:18 AM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Again, feature freeze is not about "what was planned", it is a about > what > >> is ready. Otherwise, it is completely unplannable when a release would > >> come. > >> Everyone has a pet feature they want to see in. If everyone just makes > >> decisions by themselves and pushes, we can never get anywhere. > >> > >> Disagreement with the current practice can be raised and discussed. > >> But one sided decisions to just ignore the established rules because of > >> disagreement is not acceptable. That's not how this (or any) open source > >> community can work. > >> > >> If we want to keep building an open and fair community and still release > >> high quality software, we have to be very clear about this. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:29 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Xuefu, > >>> > >>> I disagree with "all those work would be wasted/useless", it would just > >>> take effect 3 months later. > >>> > >>> Regarding "I don't see eye to eye on how and when we had decided a > >>> feature freeze", there was an official [ANNOUNCE] email that targeted > >>> June 28 [1]. I think nobody is super strict about such a date and an > >>> additional day or two but we need to stop merging into a branch to > >>> ensure build stability. > >>> > >>> The Flink community decided on time-based releases some time ago, of > >>> course we could discuss this policy again. But generally speaking we > >>> should release quickly because every release contains nice features > that > >>> users are waiting for. The PR in question was not listed in the intial > >>> feature discussion [2] and mentioned for the first time mid/end of > June. > >>> > >>> Personally, for the next release, I would prefer to vote on a list of > >>> FLIP topics that qualify for a release (given that they are finished in > >>> time with the expected quality). > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Timo > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> > >> > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/ANNOUNCE-Feature-freeze-for-Apache-Flink-1-9-0-release-tp29751.html > >>> [2] > >>> > >>> > >> > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Features-for-Apache-Flink-1-9-0-td28701.html > >>> > >>> Am 08.08.19 um 15:43 schrieb Xuefu Z: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I understand the merged PR is a feature, but it's something we had > >>> planned > >>>> and requested for a long time. In fact, at Hive connector side, we > >> have > >>>> done a lot of work (supporting hive udf). Without this PR, all those > >> work > >>>> would be wasted and Hive feature itself in 1.9 would also be close to > >>> being > >>>> useless. > >>>> > >>>> I also agree that feature freeze means something and has its > >> importance. > >>> On > >>>> the other hand, I don't see eye to eye on how and when we had decided > a > >>>> feature freeze should be in place. To me, our feature freeze seems to > >> be > >>>> time based. That is, we determine a time by which feature freeze will > >>>> happen, irregardless original feature plan. As a result, this practice > >>>> incurs a great deal of randomness, leaving many planned feature half > >>> baked. > >>>> The question is really about how we balance releasing something in > >> time > >>>> vs releasing something usable. This might be a great chance for us to > >>>> meditate on this topic. > >>>> > >>>> The PR in question is requested by me, and its importance to Hive > >>> connector > >>>> makes me stand by my request. On the other hand, if the PR has > anything > >>> to > >>>> improve, I'm all for it. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Xuefu > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:59 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Kurt, > >>>>> > >>>>> I posted my opinion around this particular example in FLINK-13225. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding the definition of "feature freeze": I think it is good to > >>>>> write down more of the implicit processes that we had in the past. > The > >>>>> bylaws, coding guidelines, and a better FLIP process are very good > >> steps > >>>>> towards the right direction. However, not everything can be written > >> down > >>>>> and formulized. We should also remind ourselves of basic software > >>>>> engineering principles. Merging a feature shortly before the actual > >>>>> release is always dangerous. A feature needs time to settle down and > >> be > >>>>> tested for side-effects etc. Merging a feature with a lot of > spaghetti > >>>>> code, reflection magic, and a single IT case is not a complete > feature > >>>>> that is worth merging. > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope we can improve here for the next release. Thanks for the open > >>>>> discussion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Timo > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Am 08.08.19 um 11:11 schrieb Kurt Young: > >>>>>> Hi Stephan, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up. I think it's important and a good time > >> to > >>>>>> discuss what > >>>>>> does *feature freeze* really means. At least to me, seems I have > some > >>>>>> misunderstandings with this comparing to other community members. > But > >>> as > >>>>>> you > >>>>>> pointed out in the jira and also in this mail, I think your > >>> understanding > >>>>>> makes sense > >>>>>> to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe we can have a conclusion in the thread and put this into the > >>>>> project > >>>>>> bylaws > >>>>>> which are under discussion? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regarding to FLINK-13225, I would like to hear other's opinion since > >> I > >>>>>> merged it. But > >>>>>> I would like to revert it if someone voted for reverting it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry for the inconvenience I caused. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Kurt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:46 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to bring this topic up, because we saw quite a few > >>> "secret" > >>>>>>> post-feature-freeze feature merges. > >>>>>>> The latest example was > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13225 > >>>>>>> I would like to make sure that we are all on the same page on what > a > >>>>>>> feature freeze means and how to handle possible additions after the > >>>>> feature > >>>>>>> freeze. > >>>>>>> My understanding was the following, and I assume that this was also > >>> the > >>>>>>> understanding of the community when we started establishing the > >>> release > >>>>>>> practice: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Feature freeze is the date until new features can be merged. > >>>>>>> - After the feature freeze, we only merge bug fixes, release > >>> relevant > >>>>>>> tests (end to end tests), and documentation. > >>>>>>> - Features should already be stable and have tests. It is not > >>> okay to > >>>>>>> "get a foot in the door" before feature freeze by merging something > >>>>> that is > >>>>>>> not ready (as a placeholder) and then fixing it post feature > freeze. > >>>>>>> - Extending functionality to new components is not a bug fix, it > >>> is a > >>>>>>> feature. > >>>>>>> - If someone wants to add a minor feature after the feature > >>> freeze, > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> there is a good reason for that, it should be explicitly discussed. > >> If > >>>>>>> there is no objection, it can be merged. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please let me know if you have a different understanding of what > >>> feature > >>>>>>> freeze means. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding the issue of FLINK-13225 > >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13225>? > >>>>>>> - Should we keep it? > >>>>>>> - Should we revert it in the release-1.9 branch and only keep it > >>> for > >>>>>>> master? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Stephan > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Xuefu Zhang > > > > "In Honey We Trust!" > >
