On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Removing a tag will not necessarily remove it from mirrors, but it > depends on how it is being mirrored. A git remote prune, for instance, > will not remove tags. > > Further, if removing a tag can be done as a "code change", which > requires consensus (lazy, but still consensus), not majority, then > creating the tag should also be considered under those same terms, > right? Clearly, creating this tag does not have consensus. > > Umm... what? Creating a tag *cannot* be a consensus action. That implies that a single person could bomb a release, and we explicitly have those as majority. I feel like this is taking us down a rabbit hole that is not entirely productive. Does creating a feature branch require consensus too? IMO, tagging is not a "code change" - it's a procedural step. > At the risk of flip-flopping, I'm going to have keep a -1 vote for > this release plan if it includes the creation of this confusing tag > name. I really think just dropping the branch is sufficient. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
