If the intent is to treat the tagging as a separate action from this plan, then my vote changes to +1 for this plan.
I have no objection to just dropping the branch (and mentioning the HEAD commit in the mailing list, in case the branch needs to be resurrected for some reason). My -1 comes from the "-eol" tag, not the rest of the plan. I don't see value in creating that tag, and worry about its potential for confusion. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Christopher! > > Responses inline > > > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> -1 >> >> Summary: >> >> Overall, in favor, but... >> 1. Confusing tag name >> 2. Alt. Option 1: just drop the active dev branch, no tag >> 3. Alt. Option 2: just closeout 1.4 with a quiet administrative 1.4.6 >> source release >> 4. Voting under "release" rules is invalid without signed release artifacts >> >> Exposition: >> >> Overall, I'm in favor of EOL'ing 1.4.x, but I'm not sure what an >> "1.4.6-eol" tag in SCM would mean to users. The "-eol" suffix couldn't >> really be documented anywhere for users to understand how that would >> differ from an actual release/tagged version, for users browsing the >> SCM tags. I understand a tag is not a release, but to a user, that may >> not be clear. It's also very confusing, because it does look like an >> updated release... it has a 1-up version number over the last release >> (1.4.5), after all. That's very confusing. >> >> To alleviate the confusion, it may be better to call it "1.4-eol" or >> something else to indicate that it's not a newer release than 1.4.5 >> (it's not a release at all). >> >> An alternative option to the 1.4.6-eol tag: just drop the >> development/planning branch. (This is the option that was exercised >> when this decision was made for 1.3.x). All the relevant code is >> merged to newer branches anyway, and the outstanding work planned for >> a future 1.4.6 which will never come to pass is not useful to tag >> distinctly. Besides, the HEAD commit of 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT will be around >> indefinitely, as it's merged to master, so we could achieve a similar >> purpose by simply noting its current HEAD commit >> [5bd4465c433860624091b0d97892e02f58154e7a] in a message to the mailing >> lists, for archival purposes. >> >> Another option: do an actual release vote on a signed 1.4.6 source >> artifact. It wouldn't be hard to pass, since 1.4.5 passed, and the >> current state of the branch isn't substantively different. We could >> just call this an administrative release... no need for release >> announcements and such, but it would clear up the name confusion. >> 1.4.6 would be an actual thing at that point, voted on and approved >> for release. >> >> > I would really like to avoid doing a 1.4.6 release unless someone both > feels strongly about the need and is also willing to shepherd through the > testing process. The issues closed against it to date don't add > substantively to the 1.4.5 release enough to justify the time investment in > testing, IMHO. > > I would be fine with either dropping the tag entirely or using something > like 1.4-eol. I am inclined to have a tag we can refer to in any > announcements, because they are easier to deal with for casual developers. > > Presuming no one wants to volunteer to handle a 1.4.6 release, could we > handle the tag naming as a follow-on action since it is just a code change? > > > > >> Also, I'm concerned that this is being treated as though it were a >> release vote. A release vote requires signed release artifacts: >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release >> >> You can't issue a vote under our rules for releasing without providing >> release artifacts on which to vote. While it may still be valid to >> have a similar voting mechanism for this kind of thing, what you're >> proposing is certainly not a release vote. And given that I can see >> arguments for treating it as a release plan cancellation[majority], >> though... or code change[lazy consensus]... or even adoption of new >> code base[consensus], I think the bylaws may need some clarification >> on EOL procedures/voting. >> >> > > My apologies for the lack of clarity. I only meant the phrasing "treat like > a release vote" to convey the relative importance I give the topic and to > offer some reasoning on why I was looking for stronger committer buy-in > than simple lazy approval. I did not mean to imply that this actually *is > a* release vote. > > I agree that the bylaws as they stand could use clarification on EOL. > However, I think planning would go smoother for our users if we > incorporated EOL timing and procedures into a defined lifecycle for major > versions rather than leaving it as an independent voting action. Since this > is part of a larger, more involved topic would you be fine with having it > handled as a part of our discussions around the 2.0.0 version change rather > than tying up the sunset of 1.4? > > -- > Sean
