I remember the discussion happened in pivotal internally long long time ago, cannot remember it is before or after oss.
I think I can summarize the pros and cons from all the discussions: 1. current hawq 4-digit versioning Make upgrade process quite clear and keep all the compatibility for packages, libraries and external tools. Did not see issues from past experience. 2. 3-digit semantic versioning Show API changes from the number, this is good. But the APIs of a database is quite complex, including SQL, udfs, jdbc, odbc, data formats, catalog, tools.... It will make number changes somewhat unclear and very frequent. And it is quite difficult to trace upgrade efforts. And it also has compatibility issues. And from discussion from this thread, looks most guys like option 1. Cheers Lei On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
