I just bumped to 3.1.3-SNAPSHOT and 3.2.1-SNAPSHOT on tp31 and master respectively. Initial snapshots have been deployed and docs are published.
Kuppitz, could you please start a new DISCUSS thread with the list of "dead" branches that would be removed with your clean up script? On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm about done with release stuff. No problems. Our docs for release are > really stable now i think. They seem good enough at this point that anyone > could pick it up and make a release happen. VOTE email will be out > shortly. I'll bump back to SNAPSHOT in the respective branches, deploy > initial docs, and otherwise get stuff ready for development again on Monday > (or over the weekend if I'm feeling up to it). > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> We've had a few minor patches this week to fix a few things discovered >> during testing and It doesn't seem as though we've had any objections to >> 3.1.2/3.2.0 release so we will move forward with the dual release. I'm sure >> "dual release" will make my day interesting for reasons that will soon be >> revealed to me. Anyway - getting started on this now. >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'd rather not think too hard about 3.3.x any time soon :) but, yes, >>> we'd have to take care with the workflow. At this time, I don't think we >>> should worry too heavily about maintaining more than two lines of releases >>> at a time which is what we've been doing thus far with 3.1.x (tp31) and >>> 3.2.x (master). I think we should continue with that pattern for a while >>> where after this release we do 3.1.3 on tp31 and 3.2.1 on master taking >>> care to focus on non-breaking change for both release branches. Then the >>> merge flow stays the same as what we've been doing. If there are more >>> opinions about this, please start a fresh DISCUSS thread and reference this >>> thread so we can keep this current thread more focused on code >>> freeze/release issues. >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Dylan Millikin < >>> dylan.milli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. We have been merging upstream so it's only natural that 3.1.2 >>>> be >>>> released before 3.2.0. I was a little confused about having 3.2.0 come >>>> out >>>> before so now it makes more sense. >>>> >>>> If in the future we want to be able to do this we will need our >>>> workflow to >>>> merge downstream instead. Basically that would mean that all changes we >>>> want to make to 3.2.1 would be done against 3.3.0 then cherry picked and >>>> merged down to 3.2.1 (There's a subtle difference, if you fix a >>>> feature on >>>> 3.2.1 that no longer exists in 3.3.0 for example). >>>> As far as the changelogs go, you would add the changes to whichever >>>> version(s) they were merged/applied to even if it means having >>>> duplicates. >>>> The changes merged from 3.3.0 to 3.2.1 would be in the changelog for >>>> both >>>> version but 3.2.1 would have an extra mention like "backport" (which >>>> would >>>> most likely be the majority of changes). >>>> Honestly this is tedious and only worth it if we plan on providing >>>> extended >>>> support for minor versions, (do we want to? guess this would warrant >>>> it's >>>> own discussion anyways). >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > I think we should release 3.1.2 as well. >>>> > >>>> > Marko. >>>> > >>>> > http://markorodriguez.com >>>> > >>>> > On Apr 5, 2016, at 7:56 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > I was reviewing the upgrade docs and release notes today and >>>> realized we >>>> > > have some weirdness because TinkerPop 3.2.0 is releasing prior to >>>> 3.1.2. >>>> > > 3.2.0 encompasses all of the changes in 3.1.2, so to find out what >>>> 3.2.0 >>>> > > has, you kinda have to look at both 3.1.2 and 3.2.0 upgrade docs. >>>> I'm >>>> > > starting to wonder if that will be confusing for folks who scroll >>>> down to >>>> > > 3.1.2 to see "Not Officially Released Yet". >>>> > > >>>> > > Marko had asked at one point if we were releasing 3.1.2 along with >>>> 3.2.0 >>>> > > and I'd indicated an answer of "no", but looking at it this way >>>> makes me >>>> > > wonder if that's the right call. It seems like the call to release >>>> a >>>> > > downstream version of TinkerPop should trigger the release of all >>>> > versions >>>> > > that it encompasses. So I guess the question is whether or not we >>>> should: >>>> > > >>>> > > 1. release 3.1.2 in conjunction with 3.2.0 (3.1.2 is as ready to go >>>> imo >>>> > as >>>> > > 3.2.0 at this point) >>>> > > 2. make it a TinkerPop policy to release all dependent versions of >>>> the >>>> > most >>>> > > recent expected release >>>> > > >>>> > > Of course, this does mean that we need to focus on testing BOTH >>>> 3.1.2 and >>>> > > 3.2.0 this week if we want to go this route so there's some added >>>> work >>>> > > there. Thoughts? >>>> > > >>>> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Dylan Millikin < >>>> > dylan.milli...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> Sounds good. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Mallette < >>>> spmalle...@gmail.com> >>>> > >> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> I think we should basically freeze the whole repo at this point. >>>> I'd >>>> > said >>>> > >>> in the last post that tp31 branch was still open to dev, but >>>> that's >>>> > not a >>>> > >>> great idea as we might yet have tweaks for master that could >>>> occur in >>>> > >>> tp31. So, I think the better approach should be to assume that >>>> master >>>> > >> and >>>> > >>> tp31 are both frozen except for change that will go into 3.2.0's >>>> > release >>>> > >>> build this friday. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Stephen Mallette < >>>> spmalle...@gmail.com >>>> > > >>>> > >>> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> Code freeze is basically in effect starting tomorrow for our >>>> master >>>> > >>>> branch. Development on the tp31 branch can continue as needed, >>>> but, >>>> > of >>>> > >>>> course, do not merge tp31 back to master during our freeze. >>>> Please use >>>> > >>> this >>>> > >>>> week to run tests and report problems/findings. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> As usual it would be great to hear from driver/graph providers >>>> next >>>> > >> week >>>> > >>>> to see how their implementations are working against >>>> 3.2.0-SNAPSHOT (I >>>> > >>> will >>>> > >>>> publish a "final" SNAPSHOT later today for testing). >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> I would have liked to have gotten this PR from Kuppitz merged >>>> before >>>> > >>>> freeze: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/286 >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> as that's a really good change, but it really isn't required for >>>> our >>>> > >>>> "release" - it's for our development productivity, so i don't >>>> think we >>>> > >>> need >>>> > >>>> to rush for that. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Thanks, >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Stephen >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
