Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Release v1.1.6 #1277

Closed
SocalNick opened this issue May 16, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Release v1.1.6 #1277

SocalNick opened this issue May 16, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@SocalNick
Copy link
Contributor

Hi there!

We actively use gh-ost at Gusto, we built a tool that wraps gh-ost for our use case. We've maintained a fork on and off over the years, and got our largest change, the logging interface, upstreamed several years ago. However, we'd really like to get back on upstream.

I noticed in the release notes for v1.1.5 that it was created off v1.1.4 with some commits cherry-picked from master. Seems this has been the case for the last few releases.

In our effort to get back to upstream gh-ost, we discovered that #888 introduced a bug that we caught in our integration tests. The issue is exactly as described in #1171. This change has been present in every version of gh-ost since v1.1.1. However, the change was reverted in the latest commit on master.

In addition to the latest commit, we'd really like to get a release cut that includes this small change I contributed last November.

Ideally, we'd like to have master back in a state that it can be released more frequently. As mentioned, the release notes indicate, "as it [master] contains a known issue that is currently being investigated". Can you shed light on that issue? I can report that the integration tests for our tool pass on the latest commit on gh-ost master, but we wouldn't want to use that without understanding the issue being investigated.

As an alternative, would you consider cutting a release that cherry-picks #1180 and #1194?

We really appreciate your consideration and the work you all do to make this tool a viable solution for safe schema migrations. Let us know if there's anything else we can do to support it!

Thanks,

Nick

@SocalNick
Copy link
Contributor Author

@meiji163 @rashiq @timvaillancourt wondering if you all can consider cutting a release per the above?

@timvaillancourt
Copy link
Collaborator

@meiji163 @rashiq @timvaillancourt wondering if you all can consider cutting a release per the above?

Yes, a new release is sorely needed 👍. Hoping @dm-2 / @rashiq / @meiji163 can help with that 👋🙇

@meiji163 meiji163 self-assigned this Oct 30, 2023
@meiji163
Copy link
Contributor

As mentioned, the release notes indicate, "as it [master] contains a known issue that is currently being investigated". Can you shed light on that issue? I can report that the integration tests for our tool pass on the latest commit on gh-ost master, but we wouldn't want to use that without understanding the issue being investigated.

It should be fixed in #1322. I'll work on a release this week

@meiji163
Copy link
Contributor

meiji163 commented Nov 4, 2023

@meiji163 meiji163 closed this as completed Nov 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants
@SocalNick @timvaillancourt @meiji163 and others