[hibernate-dev] master and 6.0 branch

[Davide D'Alto]

Weekly meeting sounds.
I can also help with porting things to 6.


On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:27 AM andrea boriero <andrea at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> Agree a meeting is a good idea especially when there are fixes that are not
> easily portable to 6, as pointed out by Steve I think/hope that most of the
> fixes will be easily ported by simply cherry-picking them.
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:56, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> > I would not even put it on Gail specifically per-se from the 5.x side.
> > Really we just need to be able to identify what fixes done on 5.x need to
> > be ported across to 6.  And then, depending on the complexity,  I would
> > expect some help from the person who implemented the fix in 5 porting that
> > change to 6 - most of the time, I'd expect to just apply those changes
> > myself (or Andrea or Chris).
> >
> > I think a meeting is a good idea
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:09 AM Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hibernate-dev mailing list
> > hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev