I'd say as long as there are folks who contribute patches we can do patch
releases for older minor releases. It's open source :)
Keeping *all* minor releases alive seem onerous (there could be dozens - unless
we significantly drive down the time between major releases).Could do the Linux
model and support some minor versions a bit longer than others.
Putting myself in Salesforce's (where I work) shoes... We'd move from minor or
patch release to the next at our own pace. On a case-by-case basis we'd decide
whether to deploy a patch release, wait a bit, or move to the next minor
release.HBase is nicely managed in terms of stability and compatability, so as
along as minor releases are rolling upgradable (with some versions skipped -
i.e. we could go from (say) 1.1.2 to 1.2.7) we'd likely be following the minor
versions mostly.
We would *very* rarely switch major-version as client-server incompatibilities
are very hard to handle for us.I don't think as far as big shops go we're very
special...?
Maybe we'd have to play this by ear... Start making new minor versions, and see
how much work it is to maintain the older ones and what our users end up doing
(staying on a minor version or adopting new minor versions).
This is a very interesting topic.
-- Lars
From: Sean Busbey <[email protected]>
To: dev <[email protected]>
Cc: lars hofhansl <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Minor release cadence for branch-1
It sounds to me like we have consensus around monthly for patch releases
and minor releases on demand, provided we can find RMs.
Would it be reasonable to keep all the minor release lines active until we
have a newer major release? At that point we could keep just the most
recent minor release going so long as there's demand.
--
Sean
On Mar 5, 2015 2:23 PM, "lars hofhansl" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any further comments on this?
> Seems important to get agreement at least generally.
> -- Lars
> From: lars hofhansl <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Minor release cadence for branch-1
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I had only expect a monthly patch cadence for minor release (btw, we
> started monthly releases with 0.94.x).
>
> In 0.94 and 0.98 we had no clear distinction between patch and minor
> releases.
>
> For minor releases it seems an on-demand model is more what we want. I.e.
> we'd have a monthly 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc. Then at some point we'd release
> 1.1.0... "when it's ready".
> Since that's a minor upgrade we can then have a few more 1.0.x releases
> (like 0.94 is now) and then tell folks to upgrade to 1.1.x.
> (in the end, though, patch releases should continue as long as folks are
> willing to contribute patches)
>
> I'd be happy to sign up to do a few minor (1.1, 1.2, or whatever) releases
> - but I do think we should share the love not have the same folks do
> multiple releases simulataneously.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
> From: Sean Busbey <[email protected]>
>
>
> To: dev <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:06 AM
> Subject: Minor release cadence for branch-1
>
> Hey folks!
>
> Apologies if I've overlooked this getting discussed already. Do we have a
> goal release cadence for minor versions out of branch-1?
>
> My first gut reaction is that it should essentially match the cadence we've
> been aiming at for the 0.98 line. That would mean attempting to match
> monthly, I think?
>
> The obvious problem with this is that now that we have patch versions, it
> means essentially getting a new branch per month for backports. That's
> quickly going to get old, even if we presume most additions will move onto
> branch-2 in a year or so.
>
> What do folks think about limiting which minor versions patch-level fixes
> go into? We could default to the most recent release + current minor dev
> and go back farther when requested by the issue filer?
>
> That means in ~3 months we'd expect branch-1 to be working on 1.4 and most
> patch-level fixes to go into branch-1.3 and branch-1. If someone reported a
> failure and they were on e.g. 1.1.z, we'd also do the fix in branch-1.1 and
> branch-1.2.
>
> Or should we just stick with hitting all of the branches on the presumption
> that the cherry picks should be trivial?
>
> --
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
