The website updates for ML QA (SPARK-20507) are not *actually* critical as
the project website certainly can be updated separately from the source
code guide and is not part of the release to be voted on. In future that
particular work item for the QA process could be marked down in priority,
and is definitely not a release blocker.
In any event I just resolved SPARK-20507, as I don't believe any website
updates are required for this release anyway. That fully resolves the ML QA
umbrella (SPARK-20499).
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 at 10:16 Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM Michael Armbrust <mich...@databricks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the readiness of this and previous RCs. I did cut RC1 & RC2
>> knowing that they were unlikely to pass. That said, I still think these
>> early RCs are valuable. I know several users that wanted to test new
>> features in 2.2 that have used them. Now, if we would prefer to call them
>> preview or RC0 or something I'd be okay with that as well.
>>
>
> They are valuable, I only suggest it's better to note explicitly when
> there are blockers or must-do tasks that will fail the RC. It makes a big
> difference to whether one would like to +1.
>
> I meant more than just calling them something different. An early RC could
> be voted as a released 'preview' artifact, at the start of the notional QA
> period, with a lower bar to passing, and releasable with known issues. This
> encourages more testing. It also resolves the controversy about whether
> it's OK to include an RC in a product (separate thread).
>
>
> Regarding doc updates, I don't think it is a requirement that they be
>> voted on as part of the release. Even if they are something version
>> specific. I think we have regularly updated the website with documentation
>> that was merged after the release.
>>
>
> They're part of the source release too, as markdown, and should be voted
> on. I've never understood otherwise. Have we actually released docs and
> then later changed them, so that they don't match the release? I don't
> recall that, but I do recall updating the non-version-specific website.
>
> Aside from the oddity of having docs generated from x.y source not match
> docs published for x.y, you want the same protections for doc source that
> the project distributes as anything else. It's not just correctness, but
> liability. The hypothetical is always that someone included copyrighted
> text or something without permission and now the project can't rely on the
> argument that it made a good-faith effort to review what it released on the
> site. Someone becomes personally liable.
>
> These are pretty technical reasons though. More practically, what's the
> hurry to release if docs aren't done (_if_ they're not done)? It's being
> presented as normal practice, but seems quite exceptional.
>
>
>
>> I personally don't think the QA umbrella JIRAs are particularly
>> effective, but I also wouldn't ban their use if others think they are.
>> However, I do think that real QA needs an RC to test, so I think it is fine
>> that there is still outstanding QA to be done when an RC is cut. For
>> example, I plan to run a bunch of streaming workloads on RC4 and will vote
>> accordingly.
>>
>
> QA on RCs is great (see above). The problem is, I can't distinguish
> between a JIRA that means "we must test in general", which sounds like
> something you too would ignore, and one that means "there is specific
> functionality we have to check before a release that we haven't looked at
> yet", which is a committer waving a flag that they implicitly do not want a
> release until resolved. I wouldn't +1 a release that had a Blocker software
> defect one of us reported.
>
> I know I'm harping on this, but this is the one mechanism we do use
> consistently (Blocker JIRAs) to clearly communicate about issues vital to a
> go / no-go release decision, and I think this interferes. The rest of JIRA
> noise doesn't matter much. You can see we're already resorting to secondary
> communications as a result ("anyone have any issues that need to be fixed
> before I cut another RC?" emails) because this is kind of ignored, and
> think we're swapping out a decent mechanism for worse one.
>
> I suspect, as you do, that there's no to-do here in which case they should
> be resolved and we're still on track for release. I'd wait on +1 until then.
>
>
