8:46 a.m.
Hi,
So, it's been a long time since we last released the ORM 5.2 branch and
some people are asking about it, some of them with good reasons not to
upgrade to 5.3.
I think we are making it something big because we wanted it to be THE last
5.2 release and this ends up in it not being released at all.
Also, we have a lot of other things to do, which doesn't help.
I propose the following plan:
- starting September 1st, I'll go through the 5.3 fixes and see what can be
easily backported - we already have important fixes in 5.2.18 so if some
issue is not easily backportable or worth it, I'll skip it altogether and
wait for someone to complain vocally about it;
- I'll wrap up a 5.2.18 by September 14th;
- if we need one more after that, I'll do another release.
If you have a 5.3 fix you absolutely want in 5.2.x, please be vocal about
it because there's a good chance I will be pretty aggressive in not
backporting the bugfixes we pushed to 5.3 recently (e.g. not cherry-picking
gracefully -> not in 5.2.18).
The idea is to let Gail focus as much as possible on the still opened 5.1
-> 5.3 regressions.
Does everybody agree with this plan?
--
Guillaume
9:05 a.m.
It's never realistic to say "it's THE last ..." so I guess I agree we
can show a bit of flexibility - but people should not get used to it,
we can not re-establish a plan of regular releases from 5.2.
We have to severely limit the time we can dedicate to it. Also please
make sure people are motivated to update to 5.3, they better have
extremely good reasons to not upgrade, and I would like to know more
about those reasons. Could you take some notes when you hear such war
stories?
Of course we can be more flexible with needs of contributors. If
someone needs a backport and is volunteering to do 90% of the work
then we can help, but we can't spend significant more time than
approve changes and trigger the release jobs. No blogs.
Thanks!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 14:54, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
So, it's been a long time since we last released the ORM 5.2 branch and
some people are asking about it, some of them with good reasons not to
upgrade to 5.3.
I think we are making it something big because we wanted it to be THE last
5.2 release and this ends up in it not being released at all.
Also, we have a lot of other things to do, which doesn't help.
I propose the following plan:
- starting September 1st, I'll go through the 5.3 fixes and see what can be
easily backported - we already have important fixes in 5.2.18 so if some
issue is not easily backportable or worth it, I'll skip it altogether and
wait for someone to complain vocally about it;
- I'll wrap up a 5.2.18 by September 14th;
- if we need one more after that, I'll do another release.
If you have a 5.3 fix you absolutely want in 5.2.x, please be vocal about
it because there's a good chance I will be pretty aggressive in not
backporting the bugfixes we pushed to 5.3 recently (e.g. not cherry-picking
gracefully -> not in 5.2.18).
The idea is to let Gail focus as much as possible on the still opened 5.1
-> 5.3 regressions.
Does everybody agree with this plan?
--
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
9:17 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 4:05 PM Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
It's never realistic to say "it's THE last ..." so
I guess I agree we
can show a bit of flexibility - but people should not get used to it,
we can not re-establish a plan of regular releases from 5.2.
Sure, that's not what I suggest. Just that we shouldn't put too much
pressure on "it's THE LAST release, we need to get everything in order" or
we won't release anything at all.
So it's more about saying: if we find a big issue or if we introduce a big
regression, we can fix this one and release again.
FWIW, 5.2.18 was planned for June 18th and already contains *62* resolved
issues.
But yes, the idea is no more 5.2 release after this one if we can avoid it.
E.g. no active backport of 5.3 bugfixes.
We have to severely limit the time we can dedicate to it. Also
please
make sure people are motivated to update to 5.3, they better have
extremely good reasons to not upgrade, and I would like to know more
about those reasons. Could you take some notes when you hear such war
stories?
So, the last one I heard is a user needing to support JPA 2.1 containers. I
think it's a good one.
Of course we can be more flexible with needs of contributors. If
someone needs a backport and is volunteering to do 90% of the work
then we can help, but we can't spend significant more time than
approve changes and trigger the release jobs. No blogs.
I think we need to push an announcement but it can be really simple with
just a link to the fixed issues. There's really not much more to say about
it anyway.
--
Guillaume
9:28 a.m.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 15:18, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 4:05 PM Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> It's never realistic to say "it's THE last ..." so I guess I agree
we
> can show a bit of flexibility - but people should not get used to it,
> we can not re-establish a plan of regular releases from 5.2.
Sure, that's not what I suggest. Just that we shouldn't put too much pressure on
"it's THE LAST release, we need to get everything in order" or we won't
release anything at all.
+1
So it's more about saying: if we find a big issue or if we
introduce a big regression, we can fix this one and release again.
FWIW, 5.2.18 was planned for June 18th and already contains *62* resolved issues.
But yes, the idea is no more 5.2 release after this one if we can avoid it. E.g. no
active backport of 5.3 bugfixes.
>
> We have to severely limit the time we can dedicate to it. Also please
> make sure people are motivated to update to 5.3, they better have
> extremely good reasons to not upgrade, and I would like to know more
> about those reasons. Could you take some notes when you hear such war
> stories?
So, the last one I heard is a user needing to support JPA 2.1 containers. I think
it's a good one.
I'm not convinced it's a good one :) but not going to argue, thanks
for sharing it.
>
> Of course we can be more flexible with needs of contributors. If
> someone needs a backport and is volunteering to do 90% of the work
> then we can help, but we can't spend significant more time than
> approve changes and trigger the release jobs. No blogs.
I think we need to push an announcement but it can be really simple with just a link to
the fixed issues. There's really not much more to say about it anyway.
Announce it, but no ad-hoc blogs please. We can mention the release in
the next weekly update or something like that.
--
Guillaume
1:54 p.m.
Months ago Chris volunteered to do the release. I asked him to wait so I
could get HHH-12436 and HHH-11209 fixed.
I'm finally able to address those issues. I think I'll have HHH-12436 ready
to review by early next week. I've already done some some work on on the
last bit mentioned in the PR for HHH-11209, so if nothing else gets in the
way, I should have both fixed next week.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 15:18, Guillaume Smet
<guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 4:05 PM Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>
>> It's never realistic to say "it's THE last ..." so I guess I
agree we
>> can show a bit of flexibility - but people should not get used to it,
>> we can not re-establish a plan of regular releases from 5.2.
>
>
> Sure, that's not what I suggest. Just that we shouldn't put too much
pressure on "it's THE LAST release, we need to get everything in order" or
we won't release anything at all.
+1
> So it's more about saying: if we find a big issue or if we introduce a
big regression, we can fix this one and release again.
>
> FWIW, 5.2.18 was planned for June 18th and already contains *62*
resolved issues.
>
> But yes, the idea is no more 5.2 release after this one if we can avoid
it. E.g. no active backport of 5.3 bugfixes.
>
>>
>> We have to severely limit the time we can dedicate to it. Also please
>> make sure people are motivated to update to 5.3, they better have
>> extremely good reasons to not upgrade, and I would like to know more
>> about those reasons. Could you take some notes when you hear such war
>> stories?
>
>
> So, the last one I heard is a user needing to support JPA 2.1
containers. I think it's a good one.
I'm not convinced it's a good one :) but not going to argue, thanks
for sharing it.
>>
>> Of course we can be more flexible with needs of contributors. If
>> someone needs a backport and is volunteering to do 90% of the work
>> then we can help, but we can't spend significant more time than
>> approve changes and trigger the release jobs. No blogs.
>
>
> I think we need to push an announcement but it can be really simple with
just a link to the fixed issues. There's really not much more to say about
it anyway.
Announce it, but no ad-hoc blogs please. We can mention the release in
the next weekly update or something like that.
>
> --
> Guillaume
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
2079
days inactive
2080
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Gail Badner -
Guillaume Smet -
Sanne Grinovero