Sorry, what I meant was branches+tags for each minor version release and adding updates and tags to the same branch for patch releases. Name of the branch can be release-2.X for minor version release 2.X.0 as Thomas mentioned.
- Cham On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:46 PM Michael Luckey <adude3...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>
