accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] end of life plan for 1.4 branch
Date Mon, 05 May 2014 16:11:02 GMT
I agree.  Having a final 1.4.6 release and not creating a 1.4.7-SNAPSHOT
branch seems like the path of least confusion.



On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> Having a plain "1.4.6" release would be nice (I don't like the "-eol" tag),
> but I'm fine with any other plan that closes out 1.4 with a modicum of
> clarity for users - for example, a tag off which someone could fork and
> carry on development if they care to.
>
> I can assist with adjusting the site after EOL with moving doc links etc.
>
> Bill H
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

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