It makes sense to me that 2.7 is a branch and just tags for 2.7.0, 2.7.1, etc.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:43 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > How about naming the branches release-X.Y and use them as base for all the > X.Y.Z releases? We already have the X.Y.Z tags to refer to the actual > release. > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:23 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote: > >> I would be in favor of keeping the old 2.7.0 release branch / tag static >> so that referring to it will always get the right 2.7.0 code. >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> 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 <m...@apache.org> >>> 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 <m...@apache.org >>>> > <mailto:m...@apache.org>> 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 < >>>> m...@apache.org >>>> > <mailto:m...@apache.org> >>>> > > <mailto:m...@apache.org <mailto:m...@apache.org>>> 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 >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>
