Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <290BAA7E-43E5-4993-8CA0-D8983BF0964A@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAPaJBx7tn-cD+D8NHDJdbnxXX1h-3aMhXU1sYGpNQs93=mPVkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx4iiOKxWLPW4KQsombNMBxE4Sh0nneeSAtg_Nzc6wMf3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F74C55C2-DAE0-4B62-BFF6-35BDB4743063@apache.org>
	<CAPaJBx5ob6adtXDqthcf62xZCrLyKLi2pEXxFaZMKWL1yKVgaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<68A781FC-9735-4FF0-BBB1-3828D96FC4B7@apache.org>
	<CAPaJBx7n_mS6mP5aerW8b+ONY5h+yyfEupTJ7-6v8ftNT_8i5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<A5001098-0DB5-4D72-BFC5-DA3FFBF0049A@apache.org>
	<24857C82-2D18-4211-A33A-D25DC096EDFB@apache.org>
	<CAPaJBx72kB_=5bMRwOU6xx_5MgwQgq6EJXWgiCji5p51CmEW+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9qOjk4bK=3-UHfsVGx-06H0e1QA7_ujmcwFOfFceUcqXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<290BAA7E-43E5-4993-8CA0-D8983BF0964A@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:20:01 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPaJBx4pdO3NwKCmVMLrJFzdsz0bQkDVwdFSZ+k4aAohPtM5Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
From: Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011839a680f5cb04dd3a4e53

--089e011839a680f5cb04dd3a4e53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This was discussed in the following thread:

"[DISCUSS] Simplify active release branches (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Git
workflow)"

=97 http://markmail.org/message/5edirnhli43g7lt6

At the start of this thread, I put forward my rationale for dropping
support for 1.2.x (namely, that 1.3.x should be forwards compatible with
1.2.x), and nobody objected.

I've also made an adjustment to the "n + n-1" concept, more inline with
both the Dublin discussion and the points about semver that Dale brought
up, and I added it to the wiki, as previously noted in this thread.

We will support each major version for 12 months. So, if 1.0.0 was released
> on 2010-01-01, then we would add features and fixes to it until 2011-01-0=
1.
> After 12 months have passed, we may continue to release fixes for critica=
l
> security issues, but these will be in the form of actual patches.


Note that the upgrade path for minor versions is to update the latest minor
> version. We will not continue to release patch 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.


=97 http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/CurrentReleases

I appreciate that this is the first time we've done this, so it might be a
little surprising to people. (Though, I believe, this has been the plan for
a good 12 months.) Let's closely monitor the situation, and if any issues
crop up, we deal with them.


On 21 May 2013 10:31, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On May 21, 2013, at 08:32 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought we needed to support n and n-1. Did that change?
>
> It was my impression that that=92s what we agreed on, as well.
>
> While 1.2.x -> 1.3.x is the recommended upgrade line, we pledged to
> do bugfixes and security issues for 1.2.x. Especially given that the
> view engine got a bit of a revamp, I could conceive of a situation
> where users wouldn=92t want to make the jump to 1.3.x just yet.
>
> In a post 1.3.x strict-semver, we should have less of that, but for
> now I think it is wise to keep 1.2.x up (that said, we can resurrect
> the branch at any time, so we may as well leave it out until needed).
>
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
> >
> > - beno=EEt
> > On May 21, 2013 3:43 AM, "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Nope. 1.2.x is no longer an actively supported branch. 1.3.x is forwar=
ds
> >> compatible, and is the recommended upgrade path for anyone on 1.2.x.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 20 May 2013 20:56, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Eh sorry, I just noticed that broke CI for 1.2.x which is surely stil=
l
> an
> >>> actively supported branch, shouldn=92t we keep that around?
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> On May 18, 2013, at 22:24 , Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 18.05.2013, at 19:56, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 ju=
st
> >>>>> removing the pointers to the tips of the branches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this something I need to call another vote for, or am I free to
> add
> >>> it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Go for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 18 May 2013 18:50, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 18.05.2013, at 18:43, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, the deed is done. What is your reason for wanting =
to
> >>> keep
> >>>>>>> them around?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> History :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have plenty of clones, so no worries :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 18 May 2013 18:38, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ah wow, that's what I get for going on vacation with unread
> >> threads.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11.05.2013, at 17:31, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks guys.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All the Y.Y.x branches, with the exception of 1.3.x, have been
> >>> deleted.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The following releases have been archived:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * 1.0.4
> >>>>>>>>> * 1.1.2
> >>>>>>>>> * 1.2.1
> >>>>>>>>> * 1.2.2
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (Where archived means: removed from our wiki and dist dir.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I added the following to our CurrentReleases page:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> CouchDB uses [[http://semver.org/|semantic versioning]], so, in
> a
> >>>>>>>> nutshell:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 f=
or
> >>>>>>>> critical
> >>>>>>>>> security issues, but these will be in the form of patches.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 mo=
re
> >>> fixes
> >>>>>>>>> will be made on the 1.0.x line. Similarly, 1.2.0 immediately
> >>> supersedes
> >>>>>>>>> 1.1.x.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 7 May 2013 19:34, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Devs,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We're switching over to time-based releases.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I took a moment to review our existing release branches today,
> >> and
> >>> I
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> prepared a list of recommendations for you. Please review thes=
e
> >> and
> >>>>>>>> give me
> >>>>>>>>>> feedback.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 l=
ot
> >>>>>> easier
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> we could clean this stuff up.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not a Git expert, so I am relying on someone to sanity che=
ck
> >>> 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 f=
or
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>> at all as far as I can tell.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If nobody objects in 72 hours, I will assume lazy consensus an=
d
> >>>>>> proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ## 0.10.x line and before
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Really old stuff.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Recommendation:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Drop support of these release lines
> >>>>>>>>>> * Delete the branches
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ## 0.11.x line
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> First release: March 2010 (three years old)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Unreleased changes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Fix for frequently edited documents in multi-master
> deployments
> >>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>> duplicated in _changes and _all_docs.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Recommendation:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Do not release these changes
> >>>>>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line
> >>>>>>>>>> * Delete the branch
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ## 1.0.x line
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> First release: July 2010 (three years old)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No unreleased changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Recommendation:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line
> >>>>>>>>>> * Delete the branch
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ## 1.1.x line
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> First release: July 2011 (two years old)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No unreleased changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Recommendation:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line
> >>>>>>>>>> * Delete the branch
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ## 1.2.x line
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> First release: April 2012 (one year old)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No unreleased changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 1.3.x line is backwards compatible with 1.2.x.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Recommendation:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Drop support of this release line
> >>>>>>>>>> * Delete the branch
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ## 1.3.x line
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> First release: April 2013 (one month old)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Unreleased changes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Whatever bugfixes are on master or in branches right now.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Recommendation:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * Release 1.3.1 this month.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> NS
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> NS
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> NS
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> NS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> NS
> >>
>
>


--=20
NS

--089e011839a680f5cb04dd3a4e53--