couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 14:17:45 GMT
Right. I'm gonna take a look at this in a bit. Once I've figured out what I
think we should keep around, I'll do a lazy PROPOSAL thread. Thanks for
bringing this up Jan. I'm gonna fold your argument into the release
procedure too, so we don't forget it. :)


On 26 May 2013 15:02, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Actually, another question: if we're gonna move some old releases back
> into dist for things like Homebrew, which releases? Do we just want to move
> 1.2.2 (quite recent) or do we also want to do 1.2.1? What about even older
> ones?
>
>
> On 26 May 2013 14:56, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> My point is: it's has already been removed. So I'm wondering if you think
>> we should move it back. We've never done something like this, so I wanna be
>> sure what you're proposing. :)
>>
>>
>> On 26 May 2013 14:50, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2013, at 09:47 , Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the
>>> 1.2.2
>>> > release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for
>>> > future releases?
>>>
>>> I don’t think it is too much effort to keep it around, is it?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > NS
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> NS
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
>



-- 
NS

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