hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases
Date Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:14:05 GMT
Please don’t do this for 2.8.0 against 2.7.0 till we change our existing release ordering
conventions.

Till now, I made sure 2.8.0 only has issues that are not in 2.7.3 - per the 2.8.0-follows-2.7.3
convention. As part of the release process, I will fix the remaining tickets to follow this
same convention. Again till we create new rules.

Thanks
+Vinod

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 
> If I don't hear otherwise, I'd like to go ahead and do the bulk fix version
> update on JIRA for 3.0.0-alpha1, diffing from 2.7.0. Will wait until EOD
> tomorrow in case there's more discussion. If any one is willing to help
> review my script and JIRA queries, that'd also be great.
> 
> I can also do the 2.8.0 bulk update (diffing from 2.7.0), since it should
> be a very similar process.
> 
> Best,
> Andrew
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@effectivemachines.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Does this mean you find our current system of listing a JIRA as being
>> fixed in both a 2.6.x and 2.7.x to be confusing?
>> 
>>        Nope.  I'm only confused when there isn't a .0 release in the fix
>> line.  When I see 2.6.x and 2.7.x I know that it was back ported to those
>> branches.  If I don't see a .0, I figure it's either a mistake or something
>> that was already fixed by another change in that major/minor branch.  It's
>> almost always the former, however.
>> 
>>> FWIW, my usecase is normally not "what is the earliest release that has
>> this fix?" but rather "is this fix in this release?". If it's easy to query
>> the latter, you can also determine the former. Some kind of query tool
>> could help here.
>> 
>>        It literally becomes a grep if people commit the release data into
>> the source tree, the release data is correct, etc:
>> 
>> $ mvn install site  -Preleasedocs -Pdocs -DskipTests
>> $ grep issueid
>> hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/site/markdown/release/*/CHANGES*
>> 
>>        We should probably update the release process to make sure that
>> *in progress* release data is also committed when a .0 is cut.  That's
>> likely missing. Another choice would be to modify the pom to that runs
>> releasedocmaker to use a range rather than single version, but that gets a
>> bit tricky with release dates, how big of a range, etc.  Not impossible,
>> just tricky.  Probably needs to be script that gets run as part of
>> create-release, maybe?
>> 
>>        (In reality, I do this grep against my git repo that generates the
>> change log data automatically.  This way it is always up-to-date and not
>> dependent upon release data being committed.  But that same grep could be
>> done with a JQL query just as easily.)
>> 
>>> For the release notes, am I correct in interpreting this as:
>>> 
>>> * diff a.0.0 from the previous x.y.0 release
>>> * diff a.b.0  from the previous a.0.0 or a.b.0 release
>>> * diff a.b.c from the previous a.b.0 or a.b.c release
>> 
>>        Pretty much yes.
>> 
>>> Ray pointed me at the changelogs of a few other enterprise software
>> products, and this strategy seems pretty common. I like it.
>> 
>>        It's extremely common, to the point that putting every fix for
>> every release touched is, at least to me, weird and extremely
>> unconventional.
>> 
>>> I realize now that this means a lot more JIRAs will need the 2.8.0 fix
>> version, since they only have 2.6.x and 2.7.x.
>> 
>>        Yup.
>> 
>>>  This makes the fix rules actually pretty easy:  the lowest a.b.0
>> release and all non-.0 releases.
>>> 
>>> I think this needs to be amended to handle the case of multiple major
>> release branches, since we could have something committed for both 2.9.0
>> and 3.1.0. So "lowest a.b.0 release within each major version"?
>> 
>>        Yeah, switching to effectively trunk-based development makes the
>> rules harder.  It's one of the reasons why the two big enterprisey
>> companies I worked at prior to working on Hadoop didn't really do
>> trunk-based for the vast majority of projects.  They always cut a branch
>> (or equivalent for that SCM) to delineate a break.   Given the amount of
>> ex-Sun folks involved in the early days of Hadoop, our pre-existing
>> development processes very much reflect that culture.
>> 
>>> This was true previously (no releases from trunk, trunk is versioned
>> a.0.0), but now that trunk is essentially a minor release branch, its fix
>> version needs to be treated as such.
>> 
>>        Yeah, I misspoke a bit when dealing with a head-of-tree model.
>> 3.0.0-alpha1 will generate different notes than 3.0.0-alpha2, obviously.
>> Every 3.0.0-(label) release is effectively a major version in that case.
>> 
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


Mime
View raw message