My plan is to focus on 1.5 going forward from January of 2019. Hopefully we EOL 1.4 within 6 months to a year after we start having 1.5 releases. My advice is to just look at branch-1 for your next upstream target.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:53 PM Francis Christopher Liu < toffer....@gmail.com> wrote: > Quarterly it is then! > > > Any chance of your going to 1.4 Francis so we can let Andrew's effort at > unhitching 1.3 complete? > Not right now we have some big high priority tasks that can't really be > pushed out. Tho we'll start pushing internal patches upstream and see which > branches they land and decide which is the most viable. It will be much > easier for us to move to branches that have most of our changes especially > the big ones tho not a deal breaker but will definitely be easier to get > buy in. > > Thanks, > Francis > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:58 PM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > Quarterly seems fine. > > > > Still too many branches though. > > > > Any chance of your going to 1.4 Francis so we can let Andrew's effort at > > unhitching 1.3 complete? > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:32 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I have been releasing 1.4 semi-monthly (usually, monthly) and Sean has > > been > > > releasing 1.2 every quarter. So maybe quarterly releases would be good? > > > What do others think? What is the minimum release schedule to make it > > worth > > > your while for commits/backports to a branch? At least once every half > > > year? More often? > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Francis Christopher Liu < > > > toffer....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Given there was no release activity on 1.3 all year may I ask how > you > > > are > > > > using 1.3? Are you consuming upstream changes by cherry pick into an > > > > internal branch? > > > > It depends on the urgency of an internal release we either pull in > all > > > > changes up to a release, tip or cherry-pick. For the more recent > > releases > > > > we've been cherry picking. Tho we intend to pull in all changes > again. > > > BTW > > > > I did release 1.3.2 in March. > > > > > > > > >It’s great that you’ve stepped forward to offer ongoing RM activity. > > We > > > > will need this commitment and a new pattern of more frequent > releasing > > to > > > > justify keeping the code line alive, I think. > > > > Let me know what would be an acceptable release cadence and I'll > carve > > > out > > > > time. > > > > > > > > >Did you see that I stepped forward to make a release? There is a > VOTE > > > > thread now for 1.3.3RC0. Perhaps we can start there? Would you use > it? > > > > Would you +1? Or are there changes in there that are of concern? > Please > > > > consider commenting on the VOTE. > > > > Yes we will use it, my intention is to be as current to branch-1.3 as > > > > possible. Yes, I intend to vote on the release. I am currently > running > > > the > > > > unit test and going through the release. Apologies for you having to > > cut > > > > the release. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:48 AM Andrew Purtell < > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It’s been a year since the last release. For what it’s worth I see > no > > > > harm > > > > > in continuing to release 1.3, but you have to consider how > burdensome > > > it > > > > is > > > > > to have an open code line that bug fixes need to be committed into. > > > Given > > > > > there was no release activity on 1.3 all year may I ask how you are > > > using > > > > > 1.3? Are you consuming upstream changes by cherry pick into an > > internal > > > > > branch? Or are you not consuming any upstream changes at all? If > the > > > > > latter, then what’s the point? If the former, it still isn’t great, > > > > because > > > > > while changes may be getting out into production somewhere it’s > only > > > you > > > > > who is benefitting. We need releases from branch-1.3 a lot more > > > > frequently > > > > > or it’s a bad deal for the community. Committers have to deal with > > > > > effectively a dead branch. Users get no releases. Given the > consensus > > > > > expressed on this thread we don’t want this deal. It’s great that > > > you’ve > > > > > stepped forward to offer ongoing RM activity. We will need this > > > > commitment > > > > > and a new pattern of more frequent releasing to justify keeping the > > > code > > > > > line alive, I think. > > > > > > > > > > Did you see that I stepped forward to make a release? There is a > VOTE > > > > > thread now for 1.3.3RC0. Perhaps we can start there? Would you use > > it? > > > > > Would you +1? Or are there changes in there that are of concern? > > Please > > > > > consider commenting on the VOTE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Francis Christopher Liu < > > > > > toffer....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies a bit late to this discussion. I would still like to > > > continue > > > > > > making 1.3 releases. If the concern is having a better cadence of > > > > > releases > > > > > > let me know how often the community would like (quarterly, every > > > other > > > > > > month, etc) and I'll make sure to carve out time with my > employer. > > We > > > > > will > > > > > > be on 1.3 for a while. I believe it would be beneficial for the > > > > community > > > > > > and my employer for us to be on an active release line, hence my > > > > > interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:04 PM Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thank you all for your comments. It looks like we have consensus > > to > > > > EOL > > > > > 1.3 > > > > > >> and RM one final release. I will start working on that release, > > > 1.3.3, > > > > > now. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:50 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> +1 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 12/7/18 2:24 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > > >>>> We haven't had a release from branch-1.3 for a long time and > do > > > not > > > > > >>> appear > > > > > >>>> to have an active RM for it. Unless a RM for 1.3 steps forward > > and > > > > > >>> promises > > > > > >>>> to make a release in the very near future, I propose we make > one > > > > more > > > > > >>>> release of 1.3, from the head of branch-1.3, and then retire > the > > > > > >> branch. > > > > > >>> If > > > > > >>>> this is acceptable I can RM the final 1.3 release. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > >> Andrew > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > > > truth's > > > > > >> decrepit hands > > > > > >> - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrew > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > > decrepit hands > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
