[hibernate-dev] master and 6.0 branch

[Guillaume Smet]

Sorry for not replying earlier, got very busy on other things.

So, now that we agree, how do we do things? I think we should have a weekly
meeting at a fixed time to discuss master -> 6, probably either with Andrea
or Chris.

I could do it for a few months if it helps but in the end, I think it
should be Gail for 5.x + whoever volunteers for the 6 part.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:56 PM Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:

> I completely agree with everything you say.  A few thoughts in-line...
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:37 PM Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> == What to do then
>>
>
>> There are a couple of options:
>> 1/ no workaround, then we should consider it for 5.x
>>
>
> If it is fixed in 5 then it should be fixed in 6 as well.  Either it is no
> longer a problem or because we port the fix from 5 to 6.  Not saying
> exactly how that happens - just that that needs to be the end result.
>
>
>
>> 2/ there is a viable workaround, we can postpone it to 6, but we
>> definitely would need to have something to mark them as we need to fix them
>> (a version, maybe, or a tag?) - one thing is that it would probably be a
>> good idea to categorize things a bit because when you revisit something for
>> 6, it would be a good idea to have the existing bugs in mind as it could
>> influence the design.
>>
>
> Using a tag seems enticing, but experience tells me that won't really have
> the effect I think you want.
>
>
>
>> * if it's something we want to fix in 6, there might be several options:
>> 2.1/ we can already fix it in 6 because the features are already
>> implemented
>> 2.2/ we can't fix it right now
>>
>> IMHO, we should start considering taking into account 2.1/ into the daily
>> work for 6 if we want to make this work as otherwise we will end up with a
>> very big pile of bugs when 6 finally gets finalized.
>>
>
>
>>
>> As for 2.2/, we should really have a way to keep track of them and push
>> them to case 2.1/ when we can. Note that it's the same case if it's more an
>> improvement but we consider it as something we want: if we want it, we
>> should find a way to keep track of it somehow.
>>
>> That also means that we would need someone familiar with 6 to help
>> triaging the issues. IMHO, this can be done once a week, if done regularly
>> and steadily.
>>
>> If we continue fixing bugs, even in 6 only, that still says to the
>> contributor "we hear you, we are improving". If we just stop fixing bugs
>> until 6 is more or less feature-complete, then we send a very bad message
>> IMHO. And we will end up with a pile of unfixed issues in the bugtracker
>> that we won't really be able to deal with. And less users.
>>
>
> Alpha1 just released the fix for HHH-37.  Yep, that's right 37 - the 37th
> issue ever since we moved to Jira.  We *do* keep improving ;)  And that's
> just one of the many.
>
> But yes your point is valid.  It is very important to keep fixing bugs.
>