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 >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
