For simplify, I prefer using the 4-digit mode. Best xunzhang
2016-07-06 16:07 GMT+08:00 Jiali Yao <[email protected]>: > +1 for consolidating the version. > > For 4-digit number, from the concept described above, I think 4 digit make > more sense. And from it, user can easily know whether specific upgrade > process needed or just binary switch if fine. > Based on that, for the "2.0.0", "2.0.0-incubating" or "2.0.0.0-incubating". > I prefer to 2.0.0.0-incubating since it would be consistent in JIRA and > code. > > Thanks > Jiali > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Lei Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Vineet Goel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. What I meant is also to consolidate the two into > "2.0.0-incubating" > > or "2.0.0.0-incubating" depending on which version schema we will choose. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > The 4-digit x.y.z.w versioning is: > > > > x: means major release > > y. means minor release > > z. means bug fix release > > w. used for hot fix release > > > > Catalog and data format changes need x or y change. From the number > > changes, end users know whether it needs a hawq upgrade. for this scheme, > > API changes are not reflected in the number. For 3-digit semantic > > versioning, the rules to increase the number is quite different, the > number > > change does not reflect catalog changes or data format changes but it > > reflects API changes. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
