Hi Enrico Olivelli, Totally agree, we should be careful when cherry-picking PRs. And we can't trust our own judgment too much. For an uncertain PR, we must submit a PR and wait for everyone to review it together. For example, for the PR [1] mentioned above, the measure I took was to push a PR to cherry-pick and move it to the next release version (2.10.5) so that we have enough time to discuss and reach an agreement.
Sincerely, Xiangying [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19640#pullrequestreview-1315805022 On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:56 AM Yubiao Feng <yubiao.f...@streamnative.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Enrico Olivelli > > Thank you for helping me correct my mistake > > Yubiao Feng > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello Committers, > > I believe that we should stop cherry-picking breaking changes like [1] > > to released branches. > > Really, this is something that we cannot do. > > > > When you decide to cherry-pick a commit to a "stable branch", > > currently branch-2.8, branch-2.9, branch-2.10 and branch-2.11 you > > always have to think about these things: > > - is it a breaking change ? > > - is it really needed ? > > - could it mine the stability of the branch ? > > > > The answer is usually that you can cherry-pick a change only if it > > falls into these categories: > > - there is a security hole to fix (in this case the PMC has to deal > > with it, and usually this is done not publicly) > > - there is a bad bug that cause data loss or other serious problems > > > > I have sent this message a few other times in the past. > > We, the Pulsar community, are responsible for the stability of the > > project and product that our users use in production. > > > > Even if you think that something that could "improve the performance" > > or "do something better" is appealing you always have to keep in mind > > that the risk of breaking something that is stable is too high in > > respect to the gain in terms of performances or anything else. > > > > Improvements should go only to the master branch, and users will > > benefit from them when we will cut a release. > > > > This is a free OSS project on which many users count on. > > > > If you are eager to see a performance improvement in your system, then > > this is fine, > > this is OSS and you can legally have a fork and cherry-pick the > > patches and build it on your own. > > This is the reason why OSS is cool. > > But if you are able to cherry-pick a patch you are also able to > > maintain your fork and fix any problems if the patch caused a > > regression. > > > > Most of the consumers of OSS products rely on us because they don't > > have enough engineering resources to maintain such a project by > > themselves. > > > > They trust us and they won't scan a list of tens of commits in order > > to double check if the upgrade will change the behaviour of their > > applications. > > > > This is Pulsar momentum, let's do our best to fulfill the expectations > > of the companies that are adopting our project. > > > > Enrico > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19640#pullrequestreview-1315805022 > > >
