couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 13:44:57 GMT

On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Dave,
> 
> See the following thread:
> 
> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
> 
> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
> following reasons:
> 
> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
> 
> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
>> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
> 
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
> 
> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release, we
> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available in
> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you need
> them.
> 
> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing 1.2.2
> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and install
> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more. (We
> want them do use 1.3.0.)

People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or
type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look recent”
is a primary objective here.

In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little
control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state
downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the person
still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
`brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t make
obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list) would
help.

I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not
interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our users
and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly
(it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
*very* latest.



tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
longer.

Best
Jan
--




> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or bugfixes
> to this line any more".



> 
> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
>> little bear brain today.
>> 
> 
> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
> expected. :)
> 
> 
>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
>> add a link on our website?
>> 
> 
> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
> 
> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so why
> would we want to keep it around?
> 
> -- 
> NS


Mime
View raw message