hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ming Li <...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Confusion around HAWQ versions in JIRA
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2016 08:27:10 GMT
As for the version with postfix '-incubating', if after our project be
promoted to apache standard project, the version number still grows, so
from the perspective of service, it seems the postfix is useless.

On the other hand, the output of SQL 'SELECT version();' doesn't include any
 '-incubating',  it is better to keep it same with the hawq version.

So I prefer to use just 4 digit number without any postfix '-incubating'.


On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Hong Wu <xunzhangthu@gmail.com> wrote:

> For simplify, I prefer using the 4-digit mode.
>
> Best
> xunzhang
>
> 2016-07-06 16:07 GMT+08:00 Jiali Yao <jyao@pivotal.io>:
>
> > +1 for consolidating  the version.
> >
> > For 4-digit number, from the concept described above, I think 4 digit
> make
> > more sense. And from it, user can easily know whether specific upgrade
> > process needed or just binary switch if fine.
> > Based on that, for the "2.0.0", "2.0.0-incubating" or
> "2.0.0.0-incubating".
> > I prefer to 2.0.0.0-incubating since it would be consistent in JIRA and
> > code.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jiali
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Lei Chang <lei_chang@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Vineet Goel <vvineet@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Apologies for any confusion. Let me expand further:
> > > >
> > > > 1) My proposal was to update the JIRA versions. I didn't think
> > > > 2.0.0-incubating and 2.0.0 are the same, we should either consolidate
> > > them
> > > > as one, or change the JIRA version numbers to be numerically
> different.
> > > > Version 2.0.0 shows 5 open JIRAs that may or may not belong to
> > > > "2.0.0-incubating" release. See link:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334195/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > >
> > > > We should update the 5 JIRAs listed in 2.0.0 with the correct status
> > and
> > > > fix versions. This will make it easy to track the upcoming release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Agree. What I meant is also to consolidate the two into
> > "2.0.0-incubating"
> > > or "2.0.0.0-incubating" depending on which version schema we will
> choose.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2) Regarding the 4-digit versioning in the code, that's a good
> > discussion
> > > > to have.
> > > > What is the proposed convention for managing the 4 digits and what
> sort
> > > of
> > > > code/API changes trigger a change in specific digits ? It would be
> good
> > > to
> > > > discuss the details.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The 4-digit x.y.z.w versioning is:
> > >
> > > x: means major release
> > > y. means minor release
> > > z. means bug fix release
> > > w. used for hot fix release
> > >
> > > Catalog and data format changes need x or y change. From the number
> > > changes, end users know whether it needs a hawq upgrade. for this
> scheme,
> > > API changes are not reflected in the number. For 3-digit semantic
> > > versioning, the rules to increase the number is quite different, the
> > number
> > > change does not reflect catalog changes or data format changes but it
> > > reflects API changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Vineet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Ruilong Huo <rhuo@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would prefer the option 1 to keep the 4-digit versions. This
> > > mechanism
> > > > > address the compatible issues of library in a more proper manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > PS, here are some background of the hawq versioning policy which
> > might
> > > > > help:
> > > > > Postgres based systems, including GPDB and HAWQ, have
> > > > > the notion of "MODULE_MAGIC" which is intended for the
> > > > > purpose of guaranteeing version compatibility.  In addition
> > > > > to the "MAGIC NUMBER", defined as the Major.Minor version
> > > > > , GPDB and HAWQ also have the notion of a "MAGIC
> > > > > PRODUCT" which GPDB uses to differentiate itself from
> > > > > Postgres and provide clear messages regarding "this
> > > > > library was built against Postgres" this mechanism
> > > > > could be easily employed to differentiate HAWQ and GPDB
> > > > > and allow basing the "MAGIC NUMBER" off of the HAWQ version
> > > > >  instead of the GPDB version as it does today.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ruilong Huo
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Radar Da lei <rlei@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > For Lei's proposal, I would prefer option 1 for below reasons:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Save time we may spend to solve incompatible issues.
> > > > > > 2. It will be hard to maintain semantic version if we increase
> > major
> > > > > > version every time when we are changing catalog and interface.
If
> > so,
> > > > > HAWQ
> > > > > > version will reach 10.0.0 very soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Radar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lei Chang <lei_chang@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is indeed a confusing issue. I am even confused by
what
> > Vineet
> > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are several versions currently used across the systems:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) the 3-digit JIRA versions: currently it has 2.0.0-incubating
> > and
> > > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > > > and i think they are the same, "2.0.0-incubating" is more
> formal
> > > for
> > > > > > > incubating project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) the 4-digit versions in the code which is inherited
from
> > > postgres
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > will be shown in "select version()" command;  it is somewhat
> > > related
> > > > to
> > > > > > > library compatibility and it is also related to third party
> > tools.
> > > > Some
> > > > > > > tools may read and parse versions, and changing from 4
digit
> to 3
> > > > digit
> > > > > > > might introduce some unknown incompatibility issues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So currently there are 2 options:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Keep 4-digit version scheme, changing everything to
4 digit
> > > > > versions,
> > > > > > > and release it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Change everything to 3 digits and this might introduce
some
> > > > unknown
> > > > > > > incompatibility issues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Lei
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Vineet Goel <
> vvineet@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) Proposal - we can rename the 2.0.0 version to
> > 2.0.1-incubating
> > > > as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > next planned maintenance release (for now). All JIRAs
> targeted
> > > for
> > > > > > 2.0.0
> > > > > > > > should be evaluated to see if any belong to the scope
for the
> > > > > upcoming
> > > > > > > > 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > > > > release or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Regarding comments on JIRA-875, I have created
a new JIRA
> > > > > (HAWQ-895)
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the investigation on migrating to semantic versioning.
That
> > > raises
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > question, should version 2.0.0-incubating really be
> > > > > 2.0.0.0-incubating
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-895
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > -Vineet
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Goden Yao <
> godenyao@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I want to raise some concerns around HAWQ versions
we used
> in
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > JIRA.
> > > > > > > > > We right now have:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    - 2.0.0-incubating (this is the upcoming release
we're
> > > working
> > > > > on)
> > > > > > > > >    - 2.0.0 (this was used for JIRAs after originally
> planned
> > > > > > > > >    2.0.0-incubating) , now I see a little bit
issue if we
> > > releae
> > > > > > > > >    2.0.0-incubating , what leaves with items
associated
> with
> > > this
> > > > > > > > version?
> > > > > > > > >    - 2.1.0 - supposedly , this is the next minor
release
> > > > > > > > >    - 3.0.0 - supposedly, this is the next major
release
> > > > > > > > >    - Backlog
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then I see this JIRA:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-875
> > > > > > > > > (*Upgrade
> > > > > > > > > HAWQ version to 2.0.1.0*), which is not a version
listed on
> > the
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > page.
> > > > > > > > > Can we:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    - Clarify which version is for which release
(goals,
> > > purpose,
> > > > > > etc.)
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > >    example I did for 2.0.0-incubating:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    - When you file JIRA, make sure you have a
targeted
> > version
> > > > for
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >    it's easy to track from release perspective.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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