Apologies for any confusion. Let me expand further: 1) My proposal was to update the JIRA versions. I didn't think 2.0.0-incubating and 2.0.0 are the same, we should either consolidate them as one, or change the JIRA version numbers to be numerically different. Version 2.0.0 shows 5 open JIRAs that may or may not belong to "2.0.0-incubating" release. See link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334195/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel vs https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
We should update the 5 JIRAs listed in 2.0.0 with the correct status and fix versions. This will make it easy to track the upcoming release. 2) Regarding the 4-digit versioning in the code, that's a good discussion to have. What is the proposed convention for managing the 4 digits and what sort of code/API changes trigger a change in specific digits ? It would be good to discuss the details. Thanks -Vineet On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Ruilong Huo <[email protected]> wrote: > I would prefer the option 1 to keep the 4-digit versions. This mechanism > address the compatible issues of library in a more proper manner. > > PS, here are some background of the hawq versioning policy which might > help: > Postgres based systems, including GPDB and HAWQ, have > the notion of "MODULE_MAGIC" which is intended for the > purpose of guaranteeing version compatibility. In addition > to the "MAGIC NUMBER", defined as the Major.Minor version > , GPDB and HAWQ also have the notion of a "MAGIC > PRODUCT" which GPDB uses to differentiate itself from > Postgres and provide clear messages regarding "this > library was built against Postgres" this mechanism > could be easily employed to differentiate HAWQ and GPDB > and allow basing the "MAGIC NUMBER" off of the HAWQ version > instead of the GPDB version as it does today. > > Best regards, > Ruilong Huo > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Radar Da lei <[email protected]> wrote: > > > For Lei's proposal, I would prefer option 1 for below reasons: > > > > 1. Save time we may spend to solve incompatible issues. > > 2. It will be hard to maintain semantic version if we increase major > > version every time when we are changing catalog and interface. If so, > HAWQ > > version will reach 10.0.0 very soon. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Regards, > > Radar > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lei Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is indeed a confusing issue. I am even confused by what Vineet > > > proposed. > > > > > > There are several versions currently used across the systems: > > > > > > 1) the 3-digit JIRA versions: currently it has 2.0.0-incubating and > > 2.0.0. > > > and i think they are the same, "2.0.0-incubating" is more formal for > > > incubating project. > > > > > > 2) the 4-digit versions in the code which is inherited from postgres > and > > > will be shown in "select version()" command; it is somewhat related to > > > library compatibility and it is also related to third party tools. Some > > > tools may read and parse versions, and changing from 4 digit to 3 digit > > > might introduce some unknown incompatibility issues. > > > > > > > > > So currently there are 2 options: > > > > > > 1. Keep 4-digit version scheme, changing everything to 4 digit > versions, > > > and release it. > > > > > > 2. Change everything to 3 digits and this might introduce some unknown > > > incompatibility issues. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Cheers > > > Lei > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Vineet Goel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > 1) Proposal - we can rename the 2.0.0 version to 2.0.1-incubating as > > the > > > > next planned maintenance release (for now). All JIRAs targeted for > > 2.0.0 > > > > should be evaluated to see if any belong to the scope for the > upcoming > > > > 2.0.0-incubating > > > > release or not. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Regarding comments on JIRA-875, I have created a new JIRA > (HAWQ-895) > > > for > > > > the investigation on migrating to semantic versioning. That raises > the > > > > question, should version 2.0.0-incubating really be > 2.0.0.0-incubating > > ? > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-895 > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vineet > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Goden Yao <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I want to raise some concerns around HAWQ versions we used in > Apache > > > > JIRA. > > > > > We right now have: > > > > > > > > > > - 2.0.0-incubating (this is the upcoming release we're working > on) > > > > > - 2.0.0 (this was used for JIRAs after originally planned > > > > > 2.0.0-incubating) , now I see a little bit issue if we releae > > > > > 2.0.0-incubating , what leaves with items associated with this > > > > version? > > > > > - 2.1.0 - supposedly , this is the next minor release > > > > > - 3.0.0 - supposedly, this is the next major release > > > > > - Backlog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I see this JIRA: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-875 > > > > > (*Upgrade > > > > > HAWQ version to 2.0.1.0*), which is not a version listed on the > > release > > > > > page. > > > > > Can we: > > > > > > > > > > - Clarify which version is for which release (goals, purpose, > > etc.) > > > > see > > > > > example I did for 2.0.0-incubating: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0-incubating > > > > > > > > > > - When you file JIRA, make sure you have a targeted version for > it > > > so > > > > > it's easy to track from release perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > -Goden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
