Maybe we should not go so far to name branches 2.x. This will probably make it difficult to support more than 1 LTS. Don't know, whether we ever intent to do so, but supporting 2.7 and 2.13 on a 2.x branch seems difficult?
A more explicit 2.7.x with tags 2.7.1, 2.7.2 etc might be better? If we are going to support a second LTS later on, we could just add that 2.??.x branch. michel On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:37 AM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> wrote: > +1 for 2.x branches and tags for 2.x.y releases. > > Also, I think we should integrate the dependency upgrade > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6552 to 2.7.1 which fixes a > rare but critical bug. > > Thanks, > Cham > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:17 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>
