> 1.4-eol > 1.4-closed > 1.4-orphaned > 1.4-closeout > 1.4-abandoned > 1.4-unreleased
I'm also +1 to other, similar names. My only sticking point be that it be prefixed 1.4 and not 1.4.6. -Joey On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]> wrote: > [X ] +1 I am in favor of announcing End of Life according to the above > plan with any of the following for the tag name: > > 1.4-eol > 1.4-closed > 1.4-orphaned > 1.4-closeout > 1.4-abandoned > 1.4-unreleased > > -Joey > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't see how that affects removing of the branch for active >>> development. If an issue >>> warrants it, that branch can always be reopened. Removing it indicates >>> that it's not expected to be reopened, and that we've agreed to focus >>> on new versions. >>> >> >> I don't like removing branches because forces those folks who are >> maintaining their own 1.4 branches to figure out how to fix things locally >> when the remote branch they're tracking goes away. Is it sufficient to tell >> folks to do the following to address this? >> >> git rebase --onto 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT-eol 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT 1.4.6-SNAPSHOT-local >> >> What happens if the branch is deleted and then is reopened at a later time? >> Are there further machinations that a developer maintaining a 1.4.x branch >> much go through to get back on track? >> >> Perhaps this is just the way with git, and I'm trapped in the mindset of >> long-running branches that run parallel to major revision development and >> aren't targeted at a specific point release. In looking at this I'm >> reminded that the Accumulo community has chosen the latter path where >> branches are short-lived and targeted at the next release. >> >> >>> I'm not sure if that means we should archive the 1.4.x >>> versions in JIRA, so people can mark those versions as affected or >>> not. Maybe it'd just be useful to just archive 1.4.0-1.4.3, and leave >>> 1.4.4/1.4.5 unarchived. (I suggest the last two versions of 1.4, only >>> because the last version introduced a lot of changes that people may >>> be reluctant to update to, if they aren't transitioning to hadoop 2). >>> >> >> I see JIRA being useful as both a work tracking/planning tool >and< a user >> support tool / record of project history (like commit history). Would >> archiving releases prevent historic issues from being findable via google? >> >> -- >>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Thanks for the response Joey. >>> > >>> > It sounds as if there's agreement on a number of points and it sounds >>> like >>> > I'm the only person not in favor of deleting the branch and creating a >>> tag >>> > a this point. Also, bug management is an interesting issue. Thoughts >>> > in-line below: >>> > >>> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Joey Echeverria < >>> [email protected]>wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> There is also the impact on ticket workflow. When a version is EOLed, >>> >> I'd not expect the community to provide any additional fixes for that >>> >> release line. If 1.4 hangs around, then it creates confusion over what >>> >> will happen to tickets filed against it. It also will confuse users as >>> >> they may keep filing 1.4 tickets. >>> >> >>> > >>> > If people find ticket-worthy issues in 1.4 after it's end-of-lifed >>> wouldn't >>> > we expect them to file a ticket against that version? Shouldn't these >>> > tickets reflect known issues with a release of software that people use? >>> > Regardless of the desire of the development community to produce new >>> > releases of a specific branch, it is a service to the community of users >>> to >>> > be able to record known issues (even if these will ultimately result in a >>> > wontfix resolution). Google does a very good job indexing the Apache >>> JIRA. >>> > >>> > Furthermore, issue reporting activity is a reflection of real-world use >>> > which should naturally migrate to future versions, and if people aren't >>> > migrating to future versions, we have bigger fish to fry. >>> > >>> > > To something else, perhaps: >>> >> > >>> >> > Current Stable Release: 1.5.1 >>> >> > Legacy Bugfix Release: 1.4.5 >>> >> >>> >> We used to have something like this, but that lead to some arguments >>> >> over which is stable and which legacy. For example, 1.6.0 is out now >>> >> so that means that there would be three releases we need to identify. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Ok, so, we list three releases instead of two. Two of them happen to be >>> > considered stable. If there's confusion in the user community, we likely >>> > need to do a better job explaining which one to use a la tomcat [1] >>> > >>> > Current Stable Releases: 1.5.1, 1.6.0 >>> > Legacy Bugfix Release: 1.4.5 >>> > >>> >> Could someone explain why we would want to ever delete the 1.4.x branch? >>> > >>> > I think you want to delete the branch because of our Git workflow[1] >>> >> which is to always target a patch for the earliest, non-end-of-lifed >>> >> version. You could argue that the documentation and mailing list >>> >> announcement are sufficient to declare the branch EOLed, but I don't >>> >> think that's strong enough for a casual contributor. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Who are we trying to protect here? and what are we trying to protect them >>> > from? If casual contributors can't keep up with the current state of the >>> > code and repository via the mailing list or website, I'd worry either >>> about >>> > the quality of their contributions or the quality of the documentation >>> the >>> > community is producing in terms of the current state of the project. If >>> > folks that would commit to the project aren't aware of where merges >>> should >>> > be made I'd worry that they shouldn't be committing to the project in the >>> > first place without guidance from the community. >>> > >>> > So, to summarize: >>> > >>> > I agree it's time to end of life 1.4 in that I'm in favor of stating >>> > clearly that users should not expect new releases of 1.4.x and new >>> projects >>> > and migrations should use some other version (preferably 1.6.0) >>> > >>> > I'm against stating that a new release of 1.4 will >never< be made or >>> must >>> >>never< be made - and as a result against deleting the 1.4.x development >>> > branch in favor of a tag. >>> > >>> > I'm also not in favor of preventing people from documenting the issues >>> they >>> > find with 1.4 as tickets in jira. >>> > >>> > Drew >>> > >>> > [1] http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html >>>
