[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cassandra-dev
Subject:    Re: Current Branch Merge Path - PLEASE READ!
From:       Jay Zhuang <jay.zhuang () yahoo ! com ! INVALID>
Date:       2016-12-12 18:49:00
Message-ID: 1ad49e2d-8997-f1ce-dcaf-350c93115bb3 () yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks Jeff. And I assume that the new features should only go to 3.x.

What about the backport process? For example, CASSANDRA-12941 is asking 
for backport a fix, should that be accepted? I could argue that it's a 
bug fix for Materialized View instead of new feature.

Thanks,
Jay


On 12/11/16 4:09 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> It depends on severity, but generally… If you find a bug in 3.0, you should work \
> back to 2.1 to see if it exists in older versions. We don't put minor fixes into \
> 2.1 (or really 2.2 at this point) – 2.1 is critical fixes only, and 2.2 is \
> getting to that point as well. 
> If it's a minor minor bug, fix it in 3.0 and generate patches for versions newer \
> than that. If it's a critical bug, go back to 2.1 and see if it exists there as \
> well. 
> 
> 
> On 12/10/16, 6:03 PM, "Jay Zhuang" <jay.zhuang@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> > I'm new to the community, sorry if it's obvious question. Are there any
> > general guidance on choosing which branch we should start with? For
> > example, if I find a bug in 3.0, should I try to reproduce it in the
> > lowest version (2.1) and work from there?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jay
> > 
> > On 12/8/16 10:29 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
> > > The current branch merge path is, in full:
> > > 
> > > cassandra-2.1
> > > > 
> > > cassandra-2.2
> > > > 
> > > cassandra-3.0
> > > > 
> > > cassandra-3.11
> > > > 
> > > cassandra-3.X
> > > > 
> > > trunk
> > > 
> > > Wherever you start, please follow through the complete path to trunk.
> > > 
> > > I reopened JIRAs #12768, #12817, and #12694 for skipping cassandra-3.11.
> > > Owners of those tickets, please commit to the cassandra-3.11 branch and
> > > merge up. There were too many conflicts for me to comfortably try to
> > > resolve on a straight merge from 3.0.
> > > 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]