I should have refreshed my email before hitting reply. Thanks Victoria! That is a great summary and I totally agree with the direction stated.
I don't know that it needs to be included in the announcement itself, but maybe a link in the announcement to an article describing how it works on an ongoing basis (not just for the 9.18->9.20 transition) would be good. That would most likely have shown up at the top of the results when I searched. But really, it is on me for not knowing and failing to be thorough when the list already answered the question a month ago. On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:24 PM Victoria Risk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Adam, > > > What is the proper mapping of "Current Stable, ESV", "Development", and > > "New Stable" BIND versions to their respective COPR repos? I feel like it > > should be obvious, but I am missing something. > > I did consider whether we should summarize this in the announcement. Perhaps > I should have. It is confusing but as Ondřej pointed out, it was discussed > here, and was intentional for user benefit. We think that most users are > unlikely to want to swap their production environment from one stable version > to a new .0 stable version the day it is released, so this design was > supposed to minimize surprise major version upgrades. > > BIND 9.20.0 is in the bind-dev repositories, because it is the least delta vs > the last development release on 9.19. There is no new 9.19 version released > today, so that == 9.20.0. So, IF you are using 9.19.x in a production > environment, you should update to 9.20 to fix any CVEs that may apply in your > situation. > > now (July 2024) > bind = 9.18 > bind-esv = 9.18 > bind-dev = 9.20.0 > > later (once we have a new 9.21 version, August?? 2024) > bind = 9.20.x > bind-esv = 9.18.x > bind-dev = 9.21.x > > I hope this is a bit clearer. Sorry for not including this in the > announcement. > > Vicky > > > On Jul 23, 2024, at 10:31 AM, Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > this was discussed a month ago: > > > > https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2024-June/108638.html > > > > and we were basically asked to make the bumps in the repositories to not > > follow the releases. > > > > Ondrej > > -- > > Ondřej Surý (He/Him) > > [email protected] > > > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not > > feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > > > >> On 23. 7. 2024, at 10:17, Adam Augustine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> First, thank you all for the hard work you do on BIND. > >> > >> What is the proper mapping of "Current Stable, ESV", "Development", and > >> "New Stable" BIND versions to their respective COPR repos? I feel like it > >> should be obvious, but I am missing something. > >> > >> I think I expected 9.18.28 to appear in isc/bind-esv with this release > >> (which it does) and for 9.20.0 to appear in isc/bind (which it doesn't, as > >> far as I can tell anyway). 9.18.28 does appear in isc/bind as well as in > >> isc/bind-esv, which seems reasonable (though the "07776636-isc-bind-bind" > >> directory is hidden in isc/bind, it is accessible and referenced in the > >> respective repo xml files). I recognize that a direct upgrade from 9.18 to > >> 9.20 for those on the isc/bind repo might be a bit surprising at this > >> point, despite the very clear messaging about how the versioning is meant > >> to work, but at the same time, I wouldn't expect we want people using the > >> isc/bind-dev repo to get 9.20.0 for production use either. > >> > >> I don't recall how this transition was handled for 9.16->9.18, but if I > >> recall it seemed like it just magically worked for us. But back then we > >> weren't as aggressive about updating as we are now. I probably just missed > >> some explanation somewhere about how the transition is meant to be > >> handled, but my searches aren't returning anything specific to this > >> situation. Speaking of which, is there an equivalent to the > >> https://kb.isc.org/docs/changes-to-be-aware-of-when-moving-from-bind-916-to-918 > >> article for 9.18->9.20? > >> > >> We have already upgraded most of our systems to 9.18.28, but want to move > >> to 9.20.0 soon, but aren't certain the right way forward. > >> > >> Thanks again for this release. I know refactoring code is extremely > >> challenging and doesn't get the praise it deserves. > >> > -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
