storm-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Derek Dagit <da...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Next 2.x release
Date Fri, 09 Aug 2019 13:53:32 GMT
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:35:57PM +0200, Stig Rohde Døssing wrote:
> Where on the Traffic Server page do they list how long their release
> trains survive? I only see dates of release, not how long e.g. 7.x is
> supposed to receive support.  Derek,

This is a better link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/Release+Management

This example, where "RM" means "Release Manager":

> 1. We promise to make 1 major release / year, but the RM and community
>    can of course make more as necessary
> 
> 2. We only make releases off the LTS branches, which are cut once a
>    year off master
> 
> 3. Master is always open, for any type of change (including
>    incompatible changes). But don't break compatibility just for fun!
> 
> 4. Master is always stable, i.e. commits should be properly tested and
>    reviewed before committed to master.
> 
> 5. All releases are stable releases, following strict Semantic
>    Versioning.
> 
> 6. Minor releases are made at the discretion at the discretion of the
>    community and the RM.
> 
> 7. Minor releases can include new (small / safe) features, but must be
>    compatible within the LTS major version.
> 
> 8. The LTS cycle, 2 years + 6 months Sunset, does not reset when we
>     make a minor release.


Now, I am not proposing we do exactly this. The goal would be to set
expectations among developers and the community, and here is one
concrete example of how it could be done.

> If we're going to promise that a release line survives for a given
> amount of time, I think we should do it at the major version level
> only

Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. If we choose to commit to something
like the above, we should base the decision in part on what kind of
resources we have so that we do not over-commit.



> Den fre. 9. aug. 2019 kl. 00.15 skrev Derek Dagit <dagit@apache.org>:
> 
> > What do we think about defining Long-Term Support branches with a fixed
> > period of support?
> >
> > For example, we could say 2.0.x is an LTS release line with support
> > ending no earlier than a certain calendar date.
> >
> > The date could be extended, and it might ultimately be governed by the
> > timing of the subsequent release (e.g., 2.1.x or 3.0.x). Keeping things
> > clear would imply semantic versioning as mentioned earlier
> > (https://semver.org/).
> >
> > Apache Traffic Server does something like this, to name one project:
> >
> > https://trafficserver.apache.org/downloads
> >
> > Having a regular cadence of releases might also help make the process
> > easier and help set expectations for users and devs.
> >
> > --
> > Derek
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 02:50:07PM -0500, Ethan Li wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we don’t have a 2.0.x-branch and master is actually
> > “2.0.1-SNAPSHOT”.
> > >
> > > So if we  do a 2.1.0 release,  we will create a 2.1.x-branch based on
> > current master, release from there. And we change master to
> > “2.2.0-SNAPSHOT”.
> > >
> > > But we will have one problem: we will lose 2.0.x release line.
> > >
> > > There are two things I can do:
> > >
> > > 1) create a 2.0.x-branch based on v2.0.0 tag.
> > >
> > > 2) ignore it. If there is an issue with 2.0.x release,  ask users to
> > upgrade to 2.1.0.
> > >
> > > I prefer 1) but not sure if it’s the right way to make things right. Or
> > please let me know if I misunderstood something and it’s not an issue.
> > >
> > > Btw, I am seeing the same issue with 1.x-branch. We shouldn’t have
> > 1.x-branch. Instead, we should have 1.2.x-branch. But this is not a problem
> > since we will not release 1.3.x.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ethan
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 7, 2019, at 10:43 AM, Ethan Li <ethanopensource@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes thanks.
> > > >
> > > >> On Aug 7, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Sounds great. Remember to add your key to
> > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/storm/KEYS, you should
be
> > able
> > > >> to update it with an SVN client. See also
> > > >> https://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html#update.
> > > >>
> > > >> Den ons. 7. aug. 2019 kl. 15.05 skrev Ethan Li <
> > ethanopensource@gmail.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I got my pgp key signed by Bryan W. Call <bcall@apache.org
<mailto:
> > > >>> bcall@apache.org>> (Thanks to him).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My pgp key:
> > > >>>
> > http://pgp.surfnet.nl/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0xA4A672F11B5050C8
> > > >>> <
> > > >>>
> > http://pgp.surfnet.nl/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0xA4A672F11B5050C8
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My understanding is that I am good to do release with this key
now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Here is a list of PRs that we might want to include in the new
> > release:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3098 <
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3098>
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3096 <
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3096>
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2878 <
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2878>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please review if you get a chance.  Thanks
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ethan
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Aug 1, 2019, at 4:19 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks Ethan, yes 2.1.0 makes sense.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Den man. 29. jul. 2019 kl. 23.43 skrev Ethan Li <
> > > >>> ethanopensource@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> It’s a good point. I will start a discussion thread
for it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> For the new release, I went through the list:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.0.1
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20=%20STORM%20AND%20fixVersion%20=%202.0.1
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We introduced some new functionalities, including
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2720 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2720>
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3412 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3412>
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3411 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3411>
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3442 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3442>
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3396 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3396>
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3392 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3392>
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3395 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3395>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> So I think we should release 2.1.0 rather than 2.0.1.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> There are a few pull requests we may want to review before
the next
> > > >>>>> release:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3094 <
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3094>
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2990 <
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2990>
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2878 <
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2878>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>> Ethan
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Jul 29, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Hugo Louro <hmclouro@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I think it would facilitate more frequent releases
to summarize
> > in a
> > > >>> page
> > > >>>>>> the testing that all contributors/committers do in
anticipation
> > of the
> > > >>>>>> release, plus any "new" testing that may become relevant
for the
> > newer
> > > >>>>>> releases. Doing so would make it easy to create a
check form or or
> > > >>> email
> > > >>>>>> template that what we feel should be done to guarantee
a stable
> > > >>> release.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>> Hugo
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 7:15 AM Ethan Li <
> > ethanopensource@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks Stig. I will look into it.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing
<
> > > >>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I think ideally we've been trying for semver,
but it's been
> > pretty
> > > >>>>> loose,
> > > >>>>>>>> e.g. there were breaking changes in one of
the 1.2.x releases
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client. I don't know what rules
we've actually been
> > > >>> using,
> > > >>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>> any.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Semver for binary compatibility would probably
be a good rule of
> > > >>> thumb.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Den fre. 26. jul. 2019 kl. 20.01 skrev Ethan
Li <
> > > >>>>>>> ethanopensource@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Stig,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Do you know what’s the versioning standard
we have been
> > following
> > > >>> (to
> > > >>>>>>>>> determine a 2.0.1 release or 2.1.0 release)
?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Stig
Rohde Døssing <
> > > >>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sounds great, thanks Ethan.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Den fre. 26. jul. 2019 kl. 19.16 skrev
Ethan Li <
> > > >>>>>>>>> ethanopensource@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> It’s good idea to do more frequent
release. I can run the
> > next
> > > >>>>>>> release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I will take a look at both PRs.
Other than that, I think we
> > should
> > > >>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3093
<
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/3093>
 in the new
> > release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 11:58
AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > >>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we've talked about
more frequent releases before.
> > > >>> Releasing
> > > >>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> versions every few months
means people don't have to wait
> > long
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>> fixes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> get out, and smaller releases
are probably also easier for
> > users
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> grips with (the fix list for
2.0.0 is enormous).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> With that in mind, I think
we should start looking at the
> > next
> > > >>> 2.x
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> release
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2.0.1 or 2.1.0?), since it's
been a couple of months since
> > 2.0.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> released.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The fix list would be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.0.1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> .
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Govind and Ethan have offered
to run the next release, and
> > help
> > > >>>>>>>>> validate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our release process guidelines.
Would one of you have time
> > to
> > > >>> work
> > > >>>>>>> on a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release in the near future?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be good to take a
look at currently open PRs and
> > decide
> > > >>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feel need to get merged before
the next release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to see at least
> > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2990
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2878
seems like it's
> > close
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mergeable too?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >

Mime
View raw message