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 Mon, 05 May 2014 15:42:39 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message