I agree with what Sean detailed. The only place where I can see some amount of investigation being required would be for security issues or correctness issues. Knowing the affected versions, particularly if an earlier supported version does not have the bug, will help users understand the broken/insecure versions.
Regards, Mridul On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:12 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we discussed this briefly on a PR. > > It's not as clear what it means for an Improvement to 'affect a > version'. Certainly, an improvement to a feature introduced in 1.2.3 > can't affect anything earlier, and implicitly affects everything > after. It's not wrong to say it affects the latest version, at least. > And I believe we require it in JIRA because we can't require an > Affects Version for one type of issue but not another. So, just asking > people to default to 'latest version' there is no burden. > > I would not ask someone to figure out all and earliest versions that > an Improvement applies to; it just isn't that useful. We aren't > generally going to back-port improvements anyway. > > Even for bugs, we don't really need to know that a bug in master > affects 2.4.5, 2.4.4, 2.4.3, ... 2.3.6, 2.3.5, etc. It doesn't hurt to > at least say it affects the latest 2.4.x, 2.3.x releases, if known, > because it's possible it should be back-ported. Again even where this > is significantly more useful, I'm not in favor of telling people they > must test the bug report vs previous releases. > > So, if you're asserting that the current guidance is OK, I generally agree. > Is there a particular context where this was questioned? maybe we > should examine the particulars of that situation. As in all things, > context matters. > > Sean > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:34 PM Jungtaek Lim > <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi devs, > > > > I know we're busy with making Spark 3.0 be out, but I think the topic is > good to discuss at any time and actually be better to be resolved sooner > than later. > > > > In the page "Contributing to Spark", we describe the guide of "affects > version" as "For Bugs, assign at least one version that is known to exhibit > the problem or need the change". > > > > For me, that sentence clearly describes minimal requirement of affects > version via: > > > > * For the type of bug, assign one valid version > > * For other types, there's no requirement > > > > but I'm seeing the requests more than the requirement which makes me > think there might be different understanding of the sentence. Maybe there's > more, but to summarize on such requests: > > > > 1) add affects version as same as master branch for improvement/new > feature > > 2) check with older versions to fill up affects version for bug > > > > I don't see any point on doing 1). It might give some context if we > don't update the affect version (so that it can say which version was > considered when filing JIRA issue) but we also update the affect version > when we bump the master branch, which is no longer informational as the > version should have been always the same as master branch. > > > > I agree it's ideal to do 2) but I think the reason the guide doesn't > enforce is that it requires pretty much efforts to check with old versions > (sometimes even more than origin work). > > > > Suppose the happy case we have UT to verify the bugfix which fails > without the patch and passes with the patch. To check with older versions > we have to checkout the tag, and apply the UT, and "rebuild", and run UT to > verify which is pretty much time-consuming. What if there's a conflict > indeed? That's still a happy case, and in worse case (there's no such UT) > we should do E2E manual verification which I would give up. > > > > There should have some balance/threshold, and the balance should be the > thing the community has a consensus. > > > > Would like to hear everyone's voice on this. > > > > Thanks, > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >
