Mailing-List: contact yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGB5D2YR++Ye_ZgQvdaEh7esxLDAGc1MgCcfH9R0o7UqU1k=Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGB5D2YN=rtVZ6yB7ZDXncv5oY0+6GKguRc=0wo+hMrQQJ6zDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <666A8BE9-1F45-4407-ADD3-84E57931808C@apache.org> <CAGB5D2Z+TAVKRkOC+TGJhe7TbCgHVgm0p=0ySm+ApwcB5KahGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <73918F59-AC57-485D-B217-C026E168EB2A@apache.org> <CAGB5D2bVG2S6CYxiWfW65yhaLvvYeQ74zMK97v-ESeBRE8gC-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADbBEnvy8c01jn00-V=at5ECLCu4-ge=y=C2EVgJp5dw+pw2Hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGB5D2bXwMm8CP5nzPW57EiZUe4wM=RA9L3uyfRGuZbRRpVVWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <553D4F53-FFB3-4BD3-A641-2C95D26E3F99@effectivemachines.com>
 <CAGB5D2bQc5D0jGyfe8EwbdqwhN-BUdLJeyZ2e-vygaxMxn36Yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7728F953-8A07-4422-AA15-6CBAF8E930E1@effectivemachines.com>
 <CAGB5D2aKG5RewQ3tBi5-b=j6nZOsQDoVPkwwdfJOxS=70bkebQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD++eCk=8oz9Rjb-dcOFBLE8TTek9bzOQ6M+XaWwC2bKKpHkVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGB5D2Zf9+1UzMkBmNZdon+_ezOmssbQaFx12Y7PZ0tzHCm4FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B3CFAF6-A45E-4E8A-BB8F-02991590D169@apache.org> <CAAD07O+xuWye2=mEckR15LFWLjnFHcxhvykmDenKPY-DdPKiUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGB5D2ZeNihGHmS8ji2rfgzsPfPXGykZJ6bHJZ0bcd0kpP7GNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAD07O+A=hihkoowKSkBO4_47d8MWisLFvWEBFx7TMJSNk+sVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGB5D2YR++Ye_ZgQvdaEh7esxLDAGc1MgCcfH9R0o7UqU1k=Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tsuyoshi Ozawa <ozawa@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:12:15 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAD07O+EYSZep4nMxYiBbzpUJasfNSDT_9dB5sxUO20hbY2M+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2)
 releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]
To: Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
Cc: Tsuyoshi Ozawa <ozawa@apache.org>, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vinodkv@apache.org>,
	"common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
	"yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
	"hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
	"mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:12:20 -0000

> I think I understand a bit better, though now I ask how this date is different from the release date.

OIC. I also assume that the freezing branch cannot include the changes
between freezing date and the release date. This is for strict
ordering to ensure which is the newer. If we have lots maintenance
branches, it helps us to understand which branches include fix a
problem of my cluster.

> I think this problem is also pretty rare in practice, since users normally upgrade to the highest maintenance release within a major/minor.

If there will be lots maintenance branches in parallel(2.6.x, 2.7.x,
2.8.x, 2.9.x, 3.0.x), we can hit this problem more easily -  if a user
uses plan to upgrade 2.7.3 cluster to 2.8.3 or 2.9.1 or 3.0.1, which
version should the user choose? This is my concern.

However, as you mentioned, we decide to reduce the number of branches
we keep maintenance, we don't need to do that.

Best,
- Tsuyoshi

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I think I understand a bit better, though now I ask how this date is
> different from the release date. Based on the HowToRelease instructions, we
> set the release date to when the release vote passes. So, start of release
> vote vs. end of release vote doesn't seem that different, and these dates
> are still totally ordered.
>
> For the user in this scenario, she can upgrade from 2.7.3 to any later 2.7.c
> release (found easily since a.b.c releases are ordered), and when jumping to
> a new minor or major version, any version released chronologically after
> 2.7.3. This means you need to check the website, but given that this is the
> way most enterprise software is versioned, I think it'll be okay by users.
>
> I think this problem is also pretty rare in practice, since users normally
> upgrade to the highest maintenance release within a major/minor. Thus
> they'll only hit this if their upgrade cycle is faster than it takes for a
> change released in e.g. 2.6.x to then also be released in a 2.7.x.
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa <ozawa@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Andrew: I bet many would assume it's the release date, like how Ubuntu
>> > releases are numbered.
>>
>> Good point. Maybe I confuse you because of lack of explanation.
>>
>> I assume that "branch-cut off timing" mean the timing of freezing branch
>> like when starting the release vote. It's because that the release can be
>> delayed after the release pass. Does it make sense to you?
>>
>> > Even if we have the branch-cut date in the version string, devs still
>> > need to be aware of other branches and backport appropriately.
>>
>> Yes, you're right. The good point of including date is that we can declare
>> which version includes the latest changes. It helps users, not devs
>> basically, to decide which version users will use: e.g. if 2.8.1-20160801 is
>> released after 2.9.0-20160701 and a user uses 2.7.3-20160701, she can update
>> their cluster 2.8.1, which include bug fixes against 2.7.3. Please let me
>> know if I have some missing points.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tsuyoshi
>>
>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for replies Akira and Tsuyoshi, inline:
>>>
>>>> Akira: Assuming 3.0.0-alpha1 will be released between 2.7.0 and 2.8.0,
>>>> we need to add 3.0.0-alphaX if 2.8.0 is in the fix versions of a jira and we
>>>> don't need to add 3.0.0-alphaX if 2.7.0 is in the fix versions of a jira. Is
>>>> it right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, correct.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tsuyoshi: My suggestion is adding the date when branch cut is done: like
>>>> 3.0.0-alpha1-20160724, 2.8.0-20160730 or something.
>>>>
>>>> Pros:-) It's totally ordered. If we have a policy such as backporting
>>>> to maintainance branches after the date, users can find that which
>>>> version
>>>> is cutting edge. In the example of above, 2.8.0-20160730 can include bug
>>>> fixes which is not included in 3.0.0-alpha1-20160724.
>>>>
>>>> Cons:-( A bit redundant.
>>>>
>>> Could you elaborate on the problem this scheme addresses? We always want
>>> our releases, when ordered chronologically, to incorporate all the known
>>> relevant bug fixes. Even if we have the branch-cut date in the version
>>> string, devs still need to be aware of other branches and backport
>>> appropriately.
>>>
>>> Given that branch cuts and releases might not happen in the same order
>>> (e.g. if 3.0.0-alpha1 precedes 2.8.0), I think this also would be confusing
>>> for users. I bet many would assume it's the release date, like how Ubuntu
>>> releases are numbered.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Andrew
>
>

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