incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J Chris Anderson <jch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Problems releasing 1.0 and 0.11.1
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:04:18 GMT

On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Noah Slater wrote:

> 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.
> 

and 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