accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] end of life plan for 1.4 branch
Date Mon, 05 May 2014 17:57:22 GMT
You can also push a tag removal to a remote git, which should also get
picked up by mirrors, no?

-Sean

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> That would be very problematic. Pushing a tag to git is a more or less
> permanent action. If it shows up in mirrors, it can still cause the
> same confusion to end users that I was worried about.
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Christopher,
> >
> > I think the initial tag that's included in the vote would have to occur
> > (presuming the vote passes), but any follow up action based on that tag
> > (deletion, rename, etc) would just be a code change, so we could quickly
> > correct things.
> >
> > While this is practically the same as handling the tagging differently,
> > there would be a brief point-in-time where the -eol tag would exist. Is
> > that okay?
> >
> > -Sean
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> If the intent is to treat the tagging as a separate action from this
> >> plan, then my vote changes to +1 for this plan.
> >>
> >> I have no objection to just dropping the branch (and mentioning the
> >> HEAD commit in the mailing list, in case the branch needs to be
> >> resurrected for some reason). My -1 comes from the "-eol" tag, not the
> >> rest of the plan. I don't see value in creating that tag, and worry
> >> about its potential for confusion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi Christopher!
> >> >
> >> > Responses inline
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> -1
> >> >>
> >> >> Summary:
> >> >>
> >> >> Overall, in favor, but...
> >> >> 1. Confusing tag name
> >> >> 2. Alt. Option 1: just drop the active dev branch, no tag
> >> >> 3. Alt. Option 2: just closeout 1.4 with a quiet administrative 1.4.6
> >> >> source release
> >> >> 4. Voting under "release" rules is invalid without signed release
> >> artifacts
> >> >>
> >> >> Exposition:
> >> >>
> >> >> Overall, I'm in favor of EOL'ing 1.4.x, but I'm not sure what an
> >> >> "1.4.6-eol" tag in SCM would mean to users. The "-eol" suffix
> couldn't
> >> >> really be documented anywhere for users to understand how that would
> >> >> differ from an actual release/tagged version, for users browsing the
> >> >> SCM tags. I understand a tag is not a release, but to a user, that
> may
> >> >> not be clear. It's also very confusing, because it does look like an
> >> >> updated release... it has a 1-up version number over the last release
> >> >> (1.4.5), after all. That's very confusing.
> >> >>
> >> >> To alleviate the confusion, it may be better to call it "1.4-eol" or
> >> >> something else to indicate that it's not a newer release than 1.4.5
> >> >> (it's not a release at all).
> >> >>
> >> >> An alternative option to the 1.4.6-eol tag: just drop the
> >> >> development/planning branch. (This is the option that was exercised
> >> >> when this decision was made for 1.3.x). All the relevant code is
> >> >> merged to newer branches anyway, and the outstanding work planned for
> >> >> a future 1.4.6 which will never come to pass is not useful to tag
> >> >> distinctly. Besides, the HEAD commit of 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT will be around
> >> >> indefinitely, as it's merged to master, so we could achieve a similar
> >> >> purpose by simply noting its current HEAD commit
> >> >> [5bd4465c433860624091b0d97892e02f58154e7a] in a message to the
> mailing
> >> >> lists, for archival purposes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another option: do an actual release vote on a signed 1.4.6 source
> >> >> artifact. It wouldn't be hard to pass, since 1.4.5 passed, and the
> >> >> current state of the branch isn't substantively different. We could
> >> >> just call this an administrative release... no need for release
> >> >> announcements and such, but it would clear up the name confusion.
> >> >> 1.4.6 would be an actual thing at that point, voted on and approved
> >> >> for release.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > I would really like to avoid doing a 1.4.6 release unless someone both
> >> > feels strongly about the need and is also willing to shepherd through
> the
> >> > testing process. The issues closed against it to date don't add
> >> > substantively to the 1.4.5 release enough to justify the time
> investment
> >> in
> >> > testing, IMHO.
> >> >
> >> > I would be fine with either dropping the tag entirely or using
> something
> >> > like 1.4-eol. I am inclined to have a tag we can refer to in any
> >> > announcements, because they are easier to deal with for casual
> >> developers.
> >> >
> >> > Presuming no one wants to volunteer to handle a 1.4.6 release, could
> we
> >> > handle the tag naming as a follow-on action since it is just a code
> >> change?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Also, I'm concerned that this is being treated as though it were a
> >> >> release vote. A release vote requires signed release artifacts:
> >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
> >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't issue a vote under our rules for releasing without
> providing
> >> >> release artifacts on which to vote. While it may still be valid to
> >> >> have a similar voting mechanism for this kind of thing, what you're
> >> >> proposing is certainly not a release vote. And given that I can see
> >> >> arguments for treating it as a release plan cancellation[majority],
> >> >> though... or code change[lazy consensus]... or even adoption of new
> >> >> code base[consensus], I think the bylaws may need some clarification
> >> >> on EOL procedures/voting.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > My apologies for the lack of clarity. I only meant the phrasing "treat
> >> like
> >> > a release vote" to convey the relative importance I give the topic
> and to
> >> > offer some reasoning on why I was looking for stronger committer
> buy-in
> >> > than simple lazy approval. I did not mean to imply that this actually
> *is
> >> > a* release vote.
> >> >
> >> > I agree that the bylaws as they stand could use clarification on EOL.
> >> > However, I think planning would go smoother for our users if we
> >> > incorporated EOL timing and procedures into a defined lifecycle for
> major
> >> > versions rather than leaving it as an independent voting action. Since
> >> this
> >> > is part of a larger, more involved topic would you be fine with
> having it
> >> > handled as a part of our discussions around the 2.0.0 version change
> >> rather
> >> > than tying up the sunset of 1.4?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sean
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>



-- 
Sean

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message