You can also push a tag removal to a remote git, which should also get picked up by mirrors, no?
-Sean On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be very problematic. Pushing a tag to git is a more or less > permanent action. If it shows up in mirrors, it can still cause the > same confusion to end users that I was worried about. > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Christopher, > > > > I think the initial tag that's included in the vote would have to occur > > (presuming the vote passes), but any follow up action based on that tag > > (deletion, rename, etc) would just be a code change, so we could quickly > > correct things. > > > > While this is practically the same as handling the tagging differently, > > there would be a brief point-in-time where the -eol tag would exist. Is > > that okay? > > > > -Sean > > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Hi Christopher! > >> > > >> > Responses inline > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sean > -- Sean
