I still remember we had a huge discussion last year right after open sourcing HAWQ and decided to switch from 4 digits to 3 digits semantic versioning. I can dig into email box to pull out the details. Can we check if all the points from then are still valid or not?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:46 AM Xiang Sheng <[email protected]> wrote: > It is indeed better to keep the output of SQL 'select version();' with the > hawq version. > > Since the suffix '-incubating' indicates the project property, we should > keep it before the project promoted to apache standard. > So I think the output of the 'select version();' should add the suffix. And > obviously 4 digit number with suffix '-incubating' is more reasonable. > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Ming Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As for the version with postfix '-incubating', if after our project be > > promoted to apache standard project, the version number still grows, so > > from the perspective of service, it seems the postfix is useless. > > > > On the other hand, the output of SQL 'SELECT version();' doesn't include > > any > > '-incubating', it is better to keep it same with the hawq version. > > > > So I prefer to use just 4 digit number without any postfix '-incubating'. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Hong Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Xiang Sheng >
