accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joey Echeverria <joey...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] end of life plan for 1.4 branch
Date Tue, 06 May 2014 17:18:38 GMT
> 1.4-eol
> 1.4-closed
> 1.4-orphaned
> 1.4-closeout
> 1.4-abandoned
> 1.4-unreleased

I'm also +1 to other, similar names. My only sticking point be that it
be prefixed 1.4 and not 1.4.6.

-Joey

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Joey Echeverria
<joey+ml@clouderagovt.com> wrote:
> [X ] +1 I am in favor of announcing End of Life according to the above
> plan with any of the following for the tag name:
>
> 1.4-eol
> 1.4-closed
> 1.4-orphaned
> 1.4-closeout
> 1.4-abandoned
> 1.4-unreleased
>
> -Joey
>
> 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