Re: Archiving Old Releases
On Jan 11, 2013, at 00:09 , Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I propose to remove the following old releases from the distribution channels: - 1.0.3 - 1.1.1 - releases/1.2.0 They are and will always be available under http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/ This is standard procedure, I call lazy consensus. Done. Jan --
Re: Archiving Old Releases
Haha, that rhymes! On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote: On Jan 11, 2013, at 00:09 , Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I propose to remove the following old releases from the distribution channels: - 1.0.3 - 1.1.1 - releases/1.2.0 They are and will always be available under http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/ This is standard procedure, I call lazy consensus. Done. Jan -- -- Iris Couch
Re: Archiving Old Releases
+1 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I propose to remove the following old releases from the distribution channels: - 1.0.3 - 1.1.1 - releases/1.2.0 They are and will always be available under http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/ This is standard procedure, I call lazy consensus. Best Jan -- -- Iris Couch
Archiving Old Releases
Hi all, I propose to remove the following old releases from the distribution channels: - 1.0.3 - 1.1.1 - releases/1.2.0 They are and will always be available under http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/ This is standard procedure, I call lazy consensus. Best Jan --
Re: Archiving Old Releases
+1 On 10 January 2013 23:09, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I propose to remove the following old releases from the distribution channels: - 1.0.3 - 1.1.1 - releases/1.2.0 They are and will always be available under http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/ This is standard procedure, I call lazy consensus. Best Jan --
Archiving old releases.
All, Now that 1.1.1 is out I'd like to remove 0.11.2 and 1.1.0 from http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html B.
Re: Archiving old releases.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 15:09 , Robert Newson wrote: All, Now that 1.1.1 is out I'd like to remove 0.11.2 and 1.1.0 from http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html +1 Cheers Jan --
Re: Archiving old releases.
+1 On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote: All, Now that 1.1.1 is out I'd like to remove 0.11.2 and 1.1.0 from http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html B.
Archiving old releases
All, Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we should archive. For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. B.
Re: Archiving old releases
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 16:44, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote: For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. Sounds just right to me. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: Archiving old releases
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote: All, Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we should archive. For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. B. Generally, +1 Does 'archiving' break download links? Till
Re: Archiving old releases
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:47, till wrote: Does 'archiving' break download links? Archiving involves removing the link from downloads.html, which points to a CGI script which automatically picks the closest mirror to your location. It also involved moving the release to an archive distribution directory on apache.org. I don't care so much about the CGI script, but I'm asking from a package maintainer perspective. So let's say I use a mirror to download CouchDB releases, etc. -- does archiving mean they are removed from mirrors? Till
Re: Archiving old releases
On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:00, till wrote: I don't care so much about the CGI script, but I'm asking from a package maintainer perspective. So let's say I use a mirror to download CouchDB releases, etc. -- does archiving mean they are removed from mirrors? Yep, that is the point of archiving them. We archive to reduce the burden on the people who provide the mirrors. If you have code that uses a direct link to the dist directory, this will also break. But this has always been the case, and will always be the case. We're only discussion when this should happen within a release lifecycle.
Re: Archiving old releases
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:44, Robert Newson wrote: Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we should archive. For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. The ASF has asked us to tidy our distribution directory. So I would like to use this opportunity to clarify our archive policy going forward. The things to note are: * All releases are permanently archived by the ASF * Only current releases need to be in the main distribution directory * The main distribution directory is mirrored around the world * This is why we need to limit our use of it * These current releases are linked to from downloads.html * Whatever we have advertised there is what is mirrored The questions I have in mind are: * How many point releases do we want to have on downloads.html at any one time? * If we release X.X.1, do we remove X.X.0 from that page? I think that about covers it. To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure policy is, We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major version, anything else should be archived. I have been instructed to specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. The number of point releases to keep is less strict. I think everyone would agree that having two is the minimum. And I don't think anyone is against removing 0.11.2 as is being proposed. I would +1 for keeping it at two to give us a defined way to drop support for older releases. As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents us from linking to the archived versions. HTH, Paul Davis
Re: Archiving old releases
On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote: To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure policy is, We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major version, anything else should be archived. Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be. I have been instructed to specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. Again, where? This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists. I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion. Anyone see a problem with this? As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents us from linking to the archived versions. These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.
Re: Archiving old releases
How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then? When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it soon. B. On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote: To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure policy is, We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major version, anything else should be archived. Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be. I have been instructed to specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. Again, where? This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists. I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion. Anyone see a problem with this? As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents us from linking to the archived versions. These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.
Re: Archiving old releases
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote: To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure policy is, We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major version, anything else should be archived. Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be. This was a discussion on IRC to double check that I had not misinterpreted anything in the policy at [1] or the various emails that have been traded around the various lists from infrastructure that spawned this thread. I have been instructed to specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. Again, where? This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists. It is on mailing lists. The original email from Mark Thomas to the infrastructure@ and pmcs@ lists had some specific examples of what it is they're expecting. I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion. I think you're being overly concerned about upgrade paths. These versions are still in the archive if someone needs access to them. I'm not currently aware of any upgrade path that requires having any of the old bug release versions. And if there is then we really messed up somewhere... Anyone see a problem with this? Not sure what this is referring to. As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents us from linking to the archived versions. These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page. I've not seen that policy. If it is, then so be it. The bottom line is that we've been told many times that we need to remove these old bug fix versions unless there's a very specific reason to keep them. I know of no reason to keep them. If someone can point at a specific reason that they need to be kept then that is a different issue. [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#when-to-archive P.S. If you read that link previous to about five minutes ago you'll want to re-read it.
Re: Archiving old releases
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.com wrote: How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then? When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it soon. B. Yes, this is exactly what I was proposing. On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote: To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure policy is, We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major version, anything else should be archived. Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be. I have been instructed to specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. Again, where? This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists. I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion. Anyone see a problem with this? As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents us from linking to the archived versions. These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.
Re: Archiving old releases
Noah, any objections? On 6 June 2011 17:20, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.com wrote: How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then? When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it soon. B. Yes, this is exactly what I was proposing. On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote: To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure policy is, We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major version, anything else should be archived. Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be. I have been instructed to specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties. Again, where? This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists. I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion. Anyone see a problem with this? As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents us from linking to the archived versions. These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.
Re: Archiving old releases
On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote: All, Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we should archive. For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. Sounds good. Cheers Jan --
Re: Archiving old releases
Agreed. On 6 Jun 2011, at 23:12, Jan Lehnardt wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote: All, Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we should archive. For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. Sounds good. Cheers Jan --
Re: Archiving old releases
I say update it to say to upgrade to 1.0.2 (or newer) and leave it just above 1.0.2 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote: what about the 1.0.0 warning? It's part of the 1.0.1 text. On 6 June 2011 23:38, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: Agreed. On 6 Jun 2011, at 23:12, Jan Lehnardt wrote: On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote: All, Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we should archive. For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and archive everything else. Sounds good. Cheers Jan --
Re: Archiving old releases
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote: I would think the last release from the previous two version branches would be enough. Ie, 0.9.2 and 0.10.1. Releasing 0.11.0 means removing 0.9.x etc etc. I thought that too, but then you loose the full change information from the 0.9 and 0.10 lines. Good point. But what about just having something like: h2: Latest Reases 0.10.1 link 0.9.2 link Old versions link to archives h2: Changes: 0.10.1 0.10.0 0.9.2 0.9.1 etc etc +1 for this solution. So you have all the changelog on one page. - benoît
Archiving old releases
Hey, As part of the release procedure, I would like to discuss archiving old releases: http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html Please comment on what you think can be archived. Archiving involves removing the mention on this page, and removing from the distribution directory. The ASF keep an archive of old releases, so they will still be accessible if you want them. Once we reach consensus, I will make the changes. Thanks, Noah
Re: Archiving old releases
On 3 Dec 2009, at 19:38, Paul Davis wrote: I would think the last release from the previous two version branches would be enough. Ie, 0.9.2 and 0.10.1. Releasing 0.11.0 means removing 0.9.x etc etc. I thought that too, but then you loose the full change information from the 0.9 and 0.10 lines. What about just archiving the 0.8 line in it's entirety?
Re: Archiving old releases
I would think the last release from the previous two version branches would be enough. Ie, 0.9.2 and 0.10.1. Releasing 0.11.0 means removing 0.9.x etc etc. I thought that too, but then you loose the full change information from the 0.9 and 0.10 lines. Good point. But what about just having something like: h2: Latest Reases 0.10.1 link 0.9.2 link Old versions link to archives h2: Changes: 0.10.1 0.10.0 0.9.2 0.9.1 etc etc What about just archiving the 0.8 line in it's entirety? I think 0.8 should be gone, but so sould 0.9.1 and 0.10.0 links to reinforce that people should only be using those for newer builds. Paul Davis
