[X ] +1 I am in favor of announcing End of Life according to the above plan with any of the following for the tag name:
1.4-eol 1.4-closed 1.4-orphaned 1.4-closeout 1.4-abandoned 1.4-unreleased -Joey On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't see how that affects removing of the branch for active >> development. If an issue >> warrants it, that branch can always be reopened. Removing it indicates >> that it's not expected to be reopened, and that we've agreed to focus >> on new versions. >> > > I don't like removing branches because forces those folks who are > maintaining their own 1.4 branches to figure out how to fix things locally > when the remote branch they're tracking goes away. Is it sufficient to tell > folks to do the following to address this? > > git rebase --onto 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT-eol 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT-local > > What happens if the branch is deleted and then is reopened at a later time? > Are there further machinations that a developer maintaining a 1.4.x branch > much go through to get back on track? > > Perhaps this is just the way with git, and I'm trapped in the mindset of > long-running branches that run parallel to major revision development and > aren't targeted at a specific point release. In looking at this I'm > reminded that the Accumulo community has chosen the latter path where > branches are short-lived and targeted at the next release. > > >> I'm not sure if that means we should archive the 1.4.x >> versions in JIRA, so people can mark those versions as affected or >> not. Maybe it'd just be useful to just archive 1.4.0-1.4.3, and leave >> 1.4.4/1.4.5 unarchived. (I suggest the last two versions of 1.4, only >> because the last version introduced a lot of changes that people may >> be reluctant to update to, if they aren't transitioning to hadoop 2). >> > > I see JIRA being useful as both a work tracking/planning tool >and< a user > support tool / record of project history (like commit history). Would > archiving releases prevent historic issues from being findable via google? > > -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thanks for the response Joey. >> > >> > It sounds as if there's agreement on a number of points and it sounds >> like >> > I'm the only person not in favor of deleting the branch and creating a >> tag >> > a this point. Also, bug management is an interesting issue. Thoughts >> > in-line below: >> > >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Joey Echeverria < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> There is also the impact on ticket workflow. When a version is EOLed, >> >> I'd not expect the community to provide any additional fixes for that >> >> release line. If 1.4 hangs around, then it creates confusion over what >> >> will happen to tickets filed against it. It also will confuse users as >> >> they may keep filing 1.4 tickets. >> >> >> > >> > If people find ticket-worthy issues in 1.4 after it's end-of-lifed >> wouldn't >> > we expect them to file a ticket against that version? Shouldn't these >> > tickets reflect known issues with a release of software that people use? >> > Regardless of the desire of the development community to produce new >> > releases of a specific branch, it is a service to the community of users >> to >> > be able to record known issues (even if these will ultimately result in a >> > wontfix resolution). Google does a very good job indexing the Apache >> JIRA. >> > >> > Furthermore, issue reporting activity is a reflection of real-world use >> > which should naturally migrate to future versions, and if people aren't >> > migrating to future versions, we have bigger fish to fry. >> > >> > > To something else, perhaps: >> >> > >> >> > Current Stable Release: 1.5.1 >> >> > Legacy Bugfix Release: 1.4.5 >> >> >> >> We used to have something like this, but that lead to some arguments >> >> over which is stable and which legacy. For example, 1.6.0 is out now >> >> so that means that there would be three releases we need to identify. >> >> >> > >> > Ok, so, we list three releases instead of two. Two of them happen to be >> > considered stable. If there's confusion in the user community, we likely >> > need to do a better job explaining which one to use a la tomcat [1] >> > >> > Current Stable Releases: 1.5.1, 1.6.0 >> > Legacy Bugfix Release: 1.4.5 >> > >> >> Could someone explain why we would want to ever delete the 1.4.x branch? >> > >> > I think you want to delete the branch because of our Git workflow[1] >> >> which is to always target a patch for the earliest, non-end-of-lifed >> >> version. You could argue that the documentation and mailing list >> >> announcement are sufficient to declare the branch EOLed, but I don't >> >> think that's strong enough for a casual contributor. >> >> >> > >> > Who are we trying to protect here? and what are we trying to protect them >> > from? If casual contributors can't keep up with the current state of the >> > code and repository via the mailing list or website, I'd worry either >> about >> > the quality of their contributions or the quality of the documentation >> the >> > community is producing in terms of the current state of the project. If >> > folks that would commit to the project aren't aware of where merges >> should >> > be made I'd worry that they shouldn't be committing to the project in the >> > first place without guidance from the community. >> > >> > So, to summarize: >> > >> > I agree it's time to end of life 1.4 in that I'm in favor of stating >> > clearly that users should not expect new releases of 1.4.x and new >> projects >> > and migrations should use some other version (preferably 1.6.0) >> > >> > I'm against stating that a new release of 1.4 will >never< be made or >> must >> >>never< be made - and as a result against deleting the 1.4.x development >> > branch in favor of a tag. >> > >> > I'm also not in favor of preventing people from documenting the issues >> they >> > find with 1.4 as tickets in jira. >> > >> > Drew >> > >> > [1] http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html >>
