I have waffled on whether to have release-2.7 and only branch release-2.7.1 when starting that release. I think that whenever we release 2.7.n the branch for 2.7.(n+1) should start from exactly that point, no? Or perhaps on release-2.7 branch the hardcoded version strings could be 2.7.1-SNAPSHOT/dev and remove the SNAPSHOT/dev when cutting the new release branch? I guess I think either one is fine. I think starting the branch now is smart, so that you can accumulate cherrypicks of backports.
Kenn On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:55 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote: > 2.10.0 will be done when its done. Same goes for 2.7.1, which is likely > going to > be done later since we are focusing on 2.10.0 at the moment. > > I've created the release-2.7.1 branch because there is no other place for > fixes > of future versions. It would be helpful to have a minor version branch > (e.g. > release-2.7) which can be continuously updated. > > More generally speaking, we should dedicate time for LTS releases. What is > the > point otherwise of having an LTS version? > > -Max > > On 31.01.19 16:28, Thomas Weise wrote: > > Since you were originally thinking of 2.9.x as target, 2.10.0 seems > closer both > > in time and upgrade path. > > > > I see no reason why a 2.7.1 release would materialize any sooner than > 2.10.0. > > > > Or is the intention is to just stack up fixes in the 2.7.x branch for a > > potential future release? > > > > Thomas > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:03 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I agree it's better to take some extra time to ensure the quality of > 2.10.0. > > > > I've created a 2.7.1 branch and cherry-picked the relevant > commits[1]. We could > > start collecting other fixes in case there are any. > > > > -Max > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7687 > > > > On 30.01.19 20:57, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > Sounds good to me to target 2.7.1 and 2.10.0. I will have to > re-roll RC2 > > after > > > confirming fixes for the latest blockers that were found. These > are not > > > regressions from 2.9.0. But they seem severe enough that they are > worth > > taking > > > an extra day or two, because 2.9.0 had enough problems that I > would like > > to make > > > 2.10.0 a more attractive upgrade target for users still on very > old versions. > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:22 AM Maximilian Michels < > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I know we are in the midst of releasing 2.10.0, but with the > release > > process > > > taking its time I consider creating a patch release for this > issue in the > > > FlinkRunner: https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5386 > > > > > > Initially I thought it would be good to do a 2.9.1 release, > but since we > > > have an > > > LTS version, we should probably do a 2.7.1 (LTS) release > instead. > > > > > > What do you think? I could only find one Fix Version 2.7.1 > issue in JIRA: > > > > > > https://jira.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.7.1 > > > > > > Best, > > > Max > > > > > >
