hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lei Chang <lei_ch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Confusion around HAWQ versions in JIRA
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:45:19 GMT
Agree. we should move quickly, do not let this block this release anymore.

Cheers
Lei


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Vineet Goel <vvineet@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> If there are no major objections in the next day or so, then we should move
> to finalize the decision to continue using the 4-digit versioning. In that
> case, we'll simply need to update the JIRA versions to reflect
> "2.0.0.0-incubating"
> and so on going forward.
>
> While semantic versioning is nice to have, 4-digit versioning isn't too far
> off. User experience should not be that different between the two
> conventions.
>
> If you feel there is any downside with continuing the existing 4-digit
> versioning, please chime in as well.
>
> Thanks
> -Vineet
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I still remember we had a huge discussion last year right after open
> > sourcing HAWQ and decided to switch from 4 digits to 3 digits semantic
> > versioning.
> > I can dig into email box to pull out the details. Can we check if all the
> > points from then are still valid or not?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:46 AM Xiang Sheng <xsheng@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > It is indeed better to keep the output of SQL 'select version();' with
> > the
> > > hawq version.
> > >
> > > Since the suffix '-incubating' indicates the project property, we
> should
> > > keep it before the project promoted to apache standard.
> > > So I think the output of the 'select version();' should add the suffix.
> > And
> > > obviously 4 digit number with suffix '-incubating' is more reasonable.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Ming Li <mli@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Xiang Sheng
> > >
> >
>

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