accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] end of life plan for 1.4 branch
Date Tue, 06 May 2014 16:23:33 GMT
Archiving versions in JIRA simply remove them from the drop-down list
of options when filling in the "Affects Version". Similar to releasing
a version in JIRA means it is removed from the drop-down list of
options when filling in the "Fix Version".

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Drew Farris <drew.farris@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't see how that affects removing of the branch for active
>> development. If an issue
>> warrants it, that branch can always be reopened. Removing it indicates
>> that it's not expected to be reopened, and that we've agreed to focus
>> on new versions.
>>
>
> I don't like removing branches because forces those folks who are
> maintaining their own 1.4 branches to figure out how to fix things locally
> when the remote branch they're tracking goes away. Is it sufficient to tell
> folks to do the following to address this?
>
> git rebase --onto 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT-eol 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT-local
>
> What happens if the branch is deleted and then is reopened at a later time?
> Are there further machinations that a developer maintaining a 1.4.x branch
> much go through to get back on track?
>
> Perhaps this is just the way with git, and I'm trapped in the mindset of
> long-running branches that run parallel to major revision development and
> aren't targeted at a specific point release. In looking at this I'm
> reminded that the Accumulo community has chosen the latter path where
> branches are short-lived and targeted at the next release.
>
>
>> I'm not sure if that means we should archive the 1.4.x
>> versions in JIRA, so people can mark those versions as affected or
>> not. Maybe it'd just be useful to just archive 1.4.0-1.4.3, and leave
>> 1.4.4/1.4.5 unarchived. (I suggest the last two versions of 1.4, only
>> because the last version introduced a lot of changes that people may
>> be reluctant to update to, if they aren't transitioning to hadoop 2).
>>
>
> I see JIRA being useful as both a work tracking/planning tool >and< a user
> support tool / record of project history (like commit history). Would
> archiving releases prevent historic issues from being findable via google?
>
> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Drew Farris <drew.farris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the response Joey.
>> >
>> > It sounds as if there's agreement on a number of points and it sounds
>> like
>> > I'm the only person not in favor of deleting the branch and creating a
>> tag
>> > a this point. Also, bug management is an interesting issue. Thoughts
>> > in-line below:
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Joey Echeverria <
>> joey+ml@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> There is also the impact on ticket workflow. When a version is EOLed,
>> >> I'd not expect the community to provide any additional fixes for that
>> >> release line. If 1.4 hangs around, then it creates confusion over what
>> >> will happen to tickets filed against it. It also will confuse users as
>> >> they may keep filing 1.4 tickets.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If people find ticket-worthy issues in 1.4 after it's end-of-lifed
>> wouldn't
>> > we expect them to file a ticket against that version? Shouldn't these
>> > tickets reflect known issues with a release of software that people use?
>> > Regardless of the desire of the development community to produce new
>> > releases of a specific branch, it is a service to the community of users
>> to
>> > be able to record known issues (even if these will ultimately result in a
>> > wontfix resolution). Google does a very good job indexing the Apache
>> JIRA.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, issue reporting activity is a reflection of real-world use
>> > which should naturally migrate to future versions, and if people aren't
>> > migrating to future versions, we have bigger fish to fry.
>> >
>> >  > To something else, perhaps:
>> >> >
>> >> > Current Stable Release: 1.5.1
>> >> > Legacy Bugfix Release: 1.4.5
>> >>
>> >> We used to have something like this, but that lead to some arguments
>> >> over which is stable and which legacy. For example, 1.6.0 is out now
>> >> so that means that there would be three releases we need to identify.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok, so, we list three releases instead of two. Two of them happen to be
>> > considered stable. If there's confusion in the user community, we likely
>> > need to do a better job explaining which one to use a la tomcat [1]
>> >
>> > Current Stable Releases: 1.5.1, 1.6.0
>> > Legacy Bugfix Release: 1.4.5
>> >
>> >> Could someone explain why we would want to ever delete the 1.4.x branch?
>> >
>> > I think you want to delete the branch because of our Git workflow[1]
>> >> which is to always target a patch for the earliest, non-end-of-lifed
>> >> version. You could argue that the documentation and mailing list
>> >> announcement are sufficient to declare the branch EOLed, but I don't
>> >> think that's strong enough for a casual contributor.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Who are we trying to protect here? and what are we trying to protect them
>> > from? If casual contributors can't keep up with the current state of the
>> > code and repository via the mailing list or website, I'd worry either
>> about
>> > the quality of their contributions or the quality of the documentation
>> the
>> > community is producing in terms of the current state of the project. If
>> > folks that would commit to the project aren't aware of where merges
>> should
>> > be made I'd worry that they shouldn't be committing to the project in the
>> > first place without guidance from the community.
>> >
>> > So, to summarize:
>> >
>> > I agree it's time to end of life 1.4 in that I'm in favor of stating
>> > clearly that users should not expect new releases of 1.4.x and new
>> projects
>> > and migrations should use some other version (preferably 1.6.0)
>> >
>> > I'm against stating that a new release of 1.4 will >never< be made or
>> must
>> >>never< be made - and as a result against deleting the 1.4.x development
>> > branch in favor of a tag.
>> >
>> > I'm also not in favor of preventing people from documenting the issues
>> they
>> > find with 1.4 as tickets in jira.
>> >
>> > Drew
>> >
>> > [1] http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html
>>

Mime
View raw message