Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D79DFD53F for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 19:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32163 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2013 19:56:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 32117 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2013 19:56:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 32108 invoked by uid 99); 20 May 2013 19:56:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 19:56:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.244.253.218] (HELO mail.traeumt.net) (80.244.253.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 19:56:42 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.19] (91-66-82-235-dynip.superkabel.de [91.66.82.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.traeumt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDA8414346 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 21:56:51 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!) From: Jan Lehnardt In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 21:56:09 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <24857C82-2D18-4211-A33A-D25DC096EDFB@apache.org> References: <68A781FC-9735-4FF0-BBB1-3828D96FC4B7@apache.org> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Eh sorry, I just noticed that broke CI for 1.2.x which is surely still = an actively supported branch, shouldn=92t we keep that around? Jan -- On May 18, 2013, at 22:24 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 18.05.2013, at 19:56, Noah Slater wrote: >=20 >> Based on the decision made in this thread, it would like to add = something >> to the release procedure about deleting old branches when we drop = support >> for that release line. >>=20 >> As far as I understand it, no history is lost. The tags still point = to what >> we shipped, and the commits still exist in the repository We're just >> removing the pointers to the tips of the branches. >>=20 >> Is this something I need to call another vote for, or am I free to = add it? >=20 > Go for it. >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 18 May 2013 18:50, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 18.05.2013, at 18:43, Noah Slater wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Unfortunately, the deed is done. What is your reason for wanting to = keep >>>> them around? >>>=20 >>> History :) >>>=20 >>> I have plenty of clones, so no worries :) >>>=20 >>> Jan >>> -- >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 18 May 2013 18:38, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Ah wow, that's what I get for going on vacation with unread = threads. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I'm major -1 on deleting old release branches, but I'd be happy to = have >>>>> them moved to an archived repository. For the time being, I'll = keep >>> them on >>>>> my GitHub. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Jan >>>>> -- >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 11.05.2013, at 17:31, Noah Slater wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thanks guys. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> All the Y.Y.x branches, with the exception of 1.3.x, have been = deleted. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The following releases have been archived: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * 1.0.4 >>>>>> * 1.1.2 >>>>>> * 1.2.1 >>>>>> * 1.2.2 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> (Where archived means: removed from our wiki and dist dir.) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I added the following to our CurrentReleases page: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> CouchDB uses [[http://semver.org/|semantic versioning]], so, in a >>>>> nutshell: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * X.Y.Z equates to major version, minor version, and bugfix = version. >>>>>> * The major version will be incremented every time we make = backwards >>>>>> incompatible changes. >>>>>> * The minor version will be incremented every time we add = backwards >>>>>> compatible features. >>>>>> * The patch version will be incremented every time we add = backwards >>>>>> compatible fixes. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> We will support each major version for 12 months. So, if 1.0.0 = was >>>>> released >>>>>> on 2010-01-01, then we would features and fixes to it until = 2011-01-01. >>>>>> After 12 months have passed, we may continue to release fixes for >>>>> critical >>>>>> security issues, but these will be in the form of patches. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Note that the upgrade path for minor versions is to update the = latest >>>>> minor >>>>>> version. We will not continue to release bugfix versions for an = old >>> minor >>>>>> version. That is, 1.1.0 immediately supersedes 1.0.x, and no more = fixes >>>>>> will be made on the 1.0.x line. Similarly, 1.2.0 immediately = supersedes >>>>>> 1.1.x. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 7 May 2013 19:34, Noah Slater wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Devs, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> We're switching over to time-based releases. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I took a moment to review our existing release branches today, = and I >>>>> have >>>>>>> prepared a list of recommendations for you. Please review these = and >>>>> give me >>>>>>> feedback. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> By "drop support" I mean "make official" and while this is = ostensibly >>>>> the >>>>>>> case for a few of these, what I _really_ mean is "delete the = branch". >>> I >>>>> see >>>>>>> no reason to keep this stuff around. It would make my life a lot >>> easier >>>>> if >>>>>>> we could clean this stuff up. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I'm not a Git expert, so I am relying on someone to sanity check = this. >>>>>>> Remember: if we ever want to patch up a security issue in an >>> unsupported >>>>>>> release, we will be issuing a patch. So I am assuming what we'll = want >>>>> to do >>>>>>> is patch against the last tag for that release line. No need for = the >>>>> branch >>>>>>> at all as far as I can tell. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> If nobody objects in 72 hours, I will assume lazy consensus and >>> proceed. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> ## 0.10.x line and before >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Really old stuff. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Recommendation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Drop support of these release lines >>>>>>> * Delete the branches >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> ## 0.11.x line >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> First release: March 2010 (three years old) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Unreleased changes: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Fix for frequently edited documents in multi-master = deployments >>> being >>>>>>> duplicated in _changes and _all_docs. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Recommendation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Do not release these changes >>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line >>>>>>> * Delete the branch >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> ## 1.0.x line >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> First release: July 2010 (three years old) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> No unreleased changes. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Recommendation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line >>>>>>> * Delete the branch >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> ## 1.1.x line >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> First release: July 2011 (two years old) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> No unreleased changes. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Recommendation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line >>>>>>> * Delete the branch >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> ## 1.2.x line >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> First release: April 2012 (one year old) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> No unreleased changes. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 1.3.x line is backwards compatible with 1.2.x. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Recommendation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line >>>>>>> * Delete the branch >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> ## 1.3.x line >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> First release: April 2013 (one month old) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Unreleased changes: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Whatever bugfixes are on master or in branches right now. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Recommendation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> * Release 1.3.1 this month. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> NS >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> NS >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -- >>>> NS >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> NS