trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Igor Galić <i.ga...@brainsware.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] New release process
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:30:10 GMT
I think enough time on this has passed that we can call everyone to review the current draft
in the wiki: 

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/New+Release+Processes 

and perhaps also (re?)read about Semantic Versioning, which our proposal is very tightly coupled
with: 

http://semver.org/ 

if this current proposal is clear and uncontroversial enough, we could move on to deciding
about specifics, such as which version to start with, how to handle the transition in Jira,
and which of the currently released branches should be considered LTS, etc.. 

So long, 

i 

----- Original Message -----

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom < zwoop@apache.org > wrote:

> > On Aug 12, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Igor Galić < i.galic@brainsware.org > wrote:
> 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/New+Release+Processes
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > This was exactly my problem at first. Leif was going with his proposal in
> > > one big zwoop from odd/even (-dev/stable) major.minor.patch releases to
> > > *just* major.minor releases (he's fixed that bit in the wiki by now)
> 
> > >
> 

> > Yes, I restored the major.minor.micro version concept. Sorry for
> > obfuscating
> > the issue unnecessarily. The updated proposals are still on
> 

> > From what I can gather, the issue of contention is how to deal with
> > incompatible changes. We're all in violent agreement that our long standing
> > rule of not breaking compatibility within stable releases through the year
> > is a given (e.g. 3.2.0 to v3.2.1 should always be safe).
> 

> > Cheers,
> 

> > -- Leif
> 

> I talked with Leif about this in person and I may be coming around to the
> idea.

> The versioning would follow http://semver.org/ . The PATCH version would
> essentially be used to do the version burn on a bad release vote and also
> for the LTS versions before the next MAJOR release. The LTS release (which
> is a new wrinkle Leif mentioned and I added to the wiki) would be something
> the more conservative amongst us. Those who chose to run LTS could test the
> other releases as if they were new feature dev releases leading up to the
> next LTS release. The more adventurous would run the MINOR updates as they
> came out quarterly. It's kinda like the best of both worlds in a way.

> We just need to make sure to keep Alan committing on the
> incompatible-next-major-release branch. :)

-- 
Igor Galić 

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org 
URL: http://brainsware.org/ 
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE 

Mime
View raw message