incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Problems releasing 1.0 and 0.11.1
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:53:46 GMT
UPDATE

Apparently, a lot of these entries are bug fixes or refinement, which is fine.

Because we're doing a duel release, the same entries appear in the
CHANGES and NEWS files for both the 1.0.x and 0.11.x branches. We
could release this as is, but the next release would have to include
both entries — so they would need to be de-duplicated so that
linearly, the 0.11.1 entries contain the bulk of the fixes, and the
1.0 entry contains the changes between 0.11.1 and 0.1.

As I think this information will be extremely useful for the many
people trying to decide between a minor upgrade from 0.11 and a major
upgrade to 1.0, I am requesting that we de-duplicate them now, before
release. Someone needs to remove all the entries in NEWS and CHANGES
from the 1.0.x branch that are included in the 0.11.x branch, and then
copy over the 0.11.x entries so that 1.0 follows on from the 0.11.1
release in terms of the changes documented.

I am halting the release until this is done.

See the chat log from IRC in the interests of transparency here.

20:38 <+jchris> nslater:  they look ok to me
20:38 <+nslater> jchris: my concern is that they are almost identical
20:38 <+nslater> jchris: i thought 0.11.1 was a very minor bug fix
20:38 <+jchris> the code is almost identical
20:38 <+nslater> jchris: it should not have 80% of those features
20:38 <+jchris> nslater:  we backported a bunch of stuff to 0.11.x in
prep to cut 1.0 from it
20:39 <+nslater> that stuff needs to be taken out again
20:39 <+jchris> then we realized that was silly, and are cutting 1.0 from trunk
20:39 <+nslater> right, sure - that's fine
20:39 <+jchris> then we discussed what needs to be unbackported
20:39 <+jchris> and we unbackported it
20:39 <+nslater> but the features need to be backed out. 0.11.1 should
be a bug fix release
20:39 <+jchris> the enhancements aren't new features tehy are
refinements and bug fixes
20:39 <+jchris> I'm 100% +1 on the content of the 0.11.x branch right now
20:39 <+jchris> and I've been over the commit log lots of times
20:40 <+nslater> there's like two pages of change notes
20:40 <+jchris> so be it
20:40 <+jchris> they are mostly Futon things
20:40 <+nslater> hmm
20:40 <+jchris> the criteria for unbackporting, was: will it cause
trouble for someone just looking for an upgrade?
20:41 <+jchris> 0.11.x isn't the most pedantically correct, but I
think it is pragmatically fine
20:41 <+nslater> okay, can i ask you a favour then, if you think it makes sense
20:41 <+nslater> as we're doing a dual release...
20:41 <+jchris> sure
20:42 <+nslater> could you go into branches/1.0.x and copy the CHANGES
and NEWS for 0.11.1 to them, and then shrink down the entries for
1.0.0
20:42 <+nslater> if that makes sense. because 1.0 is theoretically
after 0.11.1 - even though we're releasing at the same time
20:42 <+jchris> you mean, so that it looks like the line of
development was linear?
20:42 <+nslater> yep
20:42 <+nslater> that will make things much clearer
20:42 <+jchris> I don't see why that matters
20:42 <+nslater> because we're going to have to do it anyway
20:43 <+nslater> as soon as i release, i update the CHANGES and NEWS
in /trunk so that it is linear
20:43 <+nslater> we're going to have to do this at some point during
the release. we cant have the next release having duplicate entries in
both 0.11.1 and 1.0.0
20:43 <+jchris> I'm happy to do it, but I've got crazy bunches of
stuff to do in the next 15  minutes before we get on the road for a
board meeting
20:44 <+jchris> and I don't want to delay
20:44 <+jchris> anyone else up for it?
20:44 <+nslater> remember that these entries will appear next to each
other in the next release whatever happens. id rather do that now, as
part of the duel release, so people can see what is differnet between
0.11.1 and 1.0 by just glancing at them
20:44 <+nslater> davisp: you up for it?
20:44 <+davisp> up for what?
20:44 <+nslater> i would do it, but i dont have a confident handle on
it - so i want to defer to someone
20:45 <+nslater> davisp: the CHANGES and NEWS entries in 0.11.1 and
1.0.0 have many duplicates. which is fine, because they have duplicate
code. but id like to seperate it out so that 0.11.1 has an entry in
CHANGE and NEWS that is then copied over to the 1.0.0 branch, where we
add a much smaller two entries for what changed between 0.11.1 and
1.0.0
20:46 <+davisp> Oh
20:46 <+jchris> I think I see what needs to be done
20:47 <+jchris> diffing the 2 branches should make it clear that the
lines that are in 1.0.x NEWS and CHANGES but not in 0.11.x should be
in the 1.0 section
20:47 <+davisp> cool
20:51 <+jchris> nslater:  so in the end, CHANGES and NEWS should be
identical across trunk, 1.0.x, and 0.11.x
20:52 <+nslater> yes
20:52 <+jchris> except that 0.11.x should be missing the topmost
section (The 1.0 section)
20:52 <+nslater> yep
20:52 <+nslater> that's always the way it happens anyway - but i think
its important we do this before the release this time

Mime
View raw message