Re: [tracecompass-dev] Master branch: 2.0 or 1.1 ?

[Matthew Khouzam <matthew.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, it's good that this is cleared up, I think we are down to the core
of the matter: who maintains the features/bugfixes and how is it done. I
think the worst thing possible would be for Ericsson to work on 1.1 and
Efficios on 2.0 then we cross cherry-pick. I also think we are at a
point where meeting in person will really help clear things up. On
Wednesday we do have a meeting, we should discuss this in person and
then post the results on the mailing list so that others can see our
conclusions and comment on how right or wrong we are.

Just a little external thingy to think about: researchers doing their
masters normally have their code ready 1 month before they present their
theses. They also graduate in may. It would be a nice for them if we
merge their code in 1.x so that they can show off their work asap to
prospective employers. On a business side, we do have many features that
would be nice to share Asap. Would cherry picking, especially after the
great directory schism of 2015 not be much harder and thus less tempting
to do? I for one hope the lazy solution is often the best one. ;)

I am really warming up to keeping 1.x as master and neon as new feature
development with maybe weekly merges. Genevieve did something similar
for polytechnique. I think her experience and expertise would be quite
valuable in this situation.

BR,
Matthew

On 15-06-15 04:12 PM, Alexandre Montplaisir wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> It's the same merge conflicts more or less. The *major* pain is the
> accumulated pain from all the minor conflicts ;)
>
> But whoever is not "the" master branch has to play catch up all the
> time (either merging to a tracecompass-neon, or cherry-picking wanted
> patches to stable-1.x).
>
> Let's look at it this way: if Ericsson wants a 1.1 branch, then I
> think Ericsson should carry the burden of it. At EfficiOS we feel that
> maintaining a 1.1 branch right now is not a good investment of our
> time, because the APIs are in such a bad shape. That will hopefully
> change if we clean it up during 2.0. That and Java 8 default interface
> methods, but that is another big discussion ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
>
> On 2015-06-15 03:42 PM, Matthew Khouzam wrote:
>> Hey Alex,
>>
>> A heads up: we discussed this and all seem to agree with M-A internally.
>> I am curious, would the *major* *pain* from the merges be equal to the
>> *minor* *pain* of every cherry picked patch? especially after the code
>> move? Basically, would it be that we were forced to do work we were
>> putting off or is it additional labour?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 15-06-15 03:25 PM, Bernd Hufmann wrote:
>>> Hi Alex
>>>
>>> I have a similar concern as Marc-Andre. If we aim for 2.0 in master
>>> right away (option 1), my concern is that Mars SR1 won't get much
>>> attention and new features won't be included in SR1. Developers tend
>>> to not backport them to older release baselines. That means that users
>>> of Trace Compass who rely on released versions (not nightly builds)
>>> would have to wait till June 2016 to get these features. I'm not sure
>>> how we can make sure that certain features and bugfixes would be in
>>> SR1 and later SR2 if we go with option 1. Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Bernd
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2015 01:14 PM, Marc-André Laperle wrote:
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it, the major difference between 1) and 2) is which
>>>> version do we perceive as our main focus and what we want the
>>>> community to see as the main focus. Contributors just clone and start
>>>> working on master. I think for us (at least at Ericsson?) the main
>>>> focus is 1.1. If master is 2.0, there are some concerns that people
>>>> will not take care of backporting everything of value to 1.1 and the
>>>> SR1 release will be light on content. But I do like the simplicity of
>>>> master being "the latest and greatest" with everything permitted. I'm
>>>> not sure it's enough counter weight to the risk of not having a
>>>> feature rich 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> Marc-Andre
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: tracecompass-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [tracecompass-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Alexandre
>>>> Montplaisir [alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Friday, 12 June 2015 11:03 AM
>>>> To: tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [tracecompass-dev] Master branch: 2.0 or 1.1 ?
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Branching off (pun intended) the discussion here to talk about our
>>>> branching strategy for SR releases and Eclipse Neon.
>>>>
>>>>    From the way I see it, we basically have 2 options:
>>>> 1) Bump master to 2.0 right away, allowing API breaks all around. Then
>>>> build the SR releases from the stable-1.0 (which would rather become a
>>>> stable-1.x) branch.
>>>> 2) Bump master to 1.1, and build SR releases from there. Since You
>>>> Can't
>>>> Stop Progress (tm), this would imply having to create a -neon branch,
>>>> which could contain API breaks, and to which we would regularly merge
>>>> from master.
>>>>
>>>> I am strongly in favor of option 1). We used the option 2) workflow
>>>> back
>>>> in Linux Tools for about one full release and a half, and it was a
>>>> *major* *pain*.
>>>>
>>>> To show how limiting it is to not allow API breaks in master, consider
>>>> this : 1.0 is not even released yet, and we already have such API
>>>> breaks
>>>> in master!
>>>> (About this, I recommend to all contributors to setup their 1.0
>>>> baseline
>>>> in their workspace, so that they can be made aware of these breaks. It
>>>> is now much easier to do, thanks to targets-as-baselines. I have
>>>> updated
>>>> the instructions to do so at [1].)
>>>> So if we were to go with 2), we would have to rectify this first.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts, comments?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://wiki.eclipse.org/Trace_Compass/Development_Environment_Setup#Define_an_API_baseline
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tracecompass-dev mailing list
>>>> tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>>>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tracecompass-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tracecompass-dev mailing list
>>>> tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>>>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tracecompass-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tracecompass-dev mailing list
>>> tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tracecompass-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> tracecompass-dev mailing list
>> tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tracecompass-dev
>