> I made branch-1.4 a few weeks ago only. Whoops, sorry for that! For some reason I thought I had seen it months ago.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 from me on making 1.1 our LTS. Either 1.1 or 1.2 are candidates. I think > 1.1 has the edge because it lacks locking changes introduced into 1.2, just > like 1.2 lacks locking changes introduced in 1.3 - the latter of which has > had far reaching consequences, and the former not an insignificant change > either. > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:15 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > The discussion also brought up the notion of an LTS release line. I'm > > not > > > > sure how this jives with the more fequent minors, but would require > > some > > > > branch that's so stable that an RM can effectively spin releases > blind. > > > > > > Seems to me like this branch would necessarily need to be very > > > backport-light? Only the top of the highest priority issues would be > > > backportable to it, no? > > > > > > The LTS is as 1.1 is today -- bug fixes only. The difference here is we'd > > "formally" recognize the LTS designation somehow, perhaps with a symlink > > marker as we do for the "stable" designation. > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > Last time we DISCUSSed EOL of 1.1 was back in November. At that > time, a > > > > litany of issues were raised re: 1.2. Have those concerns been > > addressed? > > > > It seems to me that making this one the last release is too abrupt to > > > folks > > > > tracking Apache. Would be better to give some notice. > > > > > > > > Had a nice hallway conversation a couple months back (at PhoenixCon, > as > > > it > > > > happens; they feel the pain as well) about our branch situation. I'll > > let > > > > the others chime in with more details, but the gist as I recall is > that > > > we > > > > should be doing more frequent minor releases with fewer patch > releases. > > > > This pushes stabilization efforts closer to master and also imposes > > more > > > > strict stability requirements on big new features before they can be > > > merged > > > > off the feature branch. > > > > > > > > The discussion also brought up the notion of an LTS release line. I'm > > not > > > > sure how this jives with the more fequent minors, but would require > > some > > > > branch that's so stable that an RM can effectively spin releases > blind. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:14 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > (This came up during dev meeting in Shenzhen) We are running too > many > > > > > branches and/or when applying patches, we do not do a good job > > > > backporting > > > > > to all active branches, especially fixes. > > > > > > > > > > We have master, branch-2, branch-1, branch-1.4, branch-1.3, > > branch-1.2, > > > > and > > > > > branch-1.1 active currently. If a dirty bug fix, the applier is > > > > backporting > > > > > to 7 branches. It takes a while applying to all especially if the > > > > backport > > > > > doesn't go in clean. I suppose the RM could monitor all upstream of > > > them > > > > > and then pull wanted patches back (we could do that too) but seems > > > like a > > > > > burden on an RMer. > > > > > > > > > > We should EOL a few? > > > > > > > > > > Nick is on branch-1.1 release at the moment. Perhaps this could be > > the > > > > last > > > > > off branch-1.1. > > > > > > > > > > 1.2 hosts our current stable release though 1.3 is out. How about > we > > > cut > > > > a > > > > > release off 1.3, call it stable, and then EOL 1.2 after another > > release > > > > or > > > > > so? > > > > > > > > > > What you all think? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
