Hi Tony, Warning and using the deprecated command sound like a good approach.
Thanks Justin On January 9, 2017 at 11:41:56 AM, Tony Atkins (t...@raisingthefloor.org) wrote: Hi, Justin: I will wait for others to way in further on the branching strategy, but I wanted to respond to this point: > - Potentially clean up the erroneous dev builds by deleting them ( if > we can get away with that ), just the ones post 2.0 that were wrong. > > Deleting dev releases is a bad practice, and much more trouble than confusing semver ordering. Builds that rely on the version would break on the next commit or test run, for starters. Package authors would have to update before they can resume even testing their own work. This kind of unplanned disruption can cause chaos even if you're just talking about the handful of people who use dev builds within our community. It's better to warn everyone and move forward than to potentially and confusingly break work in progress. Even npm themselves strongly discourage unpublishing versions <https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/unpublish> in the documentation for the command used to do so. I can see a lot of other strategies here that would accomplish the major goal (avoiding confusion between pre and post release), for example, flagging the pre-2.0 releases as deprecated (which is what npm suggests). Cheers, Tony On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Justin Obara <obara.jus...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > *In regards to Antranig’s proposal:* > > If I’m reading Semver spec point 9 <http://semver.org/#spec-item-9> correctly, > using 2.0.0-dev.xxxxxxxxx would actually be a pre-release of 2.0.0 as > opposed to a pre-release of whatever version comes next. This means that > someone following semver would see these as coming before the 2.0.0 release > instead of after it. > > Also, from point 10 <http://semver.org/#spec-item-10>, it seems we should > have actually put the release as 2.0.0-dev+xxxxxxxxx regardless of what > approach we take. The “+” indicates that the rest is build meta data. In > our case it’s the date and revision hash. I’ve filed a JIRA for this ( > https://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-6104 ) > > *In regards to Tony’s proposal:* > > We currently have a notion of creating a .x branch to create patch > releases from. We currently have 1.4.x > <https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/tree/infusion-1.4.x>, 1.5.x > <https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/tree/infusion-1.5.x> and 1.9.x > <https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/tree/1.9.x>. We could extend > this and have a 2.0.x and 2.x.x lines. I think it would be a lot of work > though to be making commits to 3 branches ( 2.0.x 2.x.x and master ) for > one change. > > *My counter proposal:* > > - Potentially clean up the erroneous dev builds by deleting them ( if > we can get away with that ), just the ones post 2.0 that were wrong. > - Increment master based on the commits that are merged. That is start > by changing it to 2.0.1, if a commit is going to have something that > warrants a minor release, create a 2.0.1 patch release first ( if there > were changes ). Then bump the release up to 2.1.0, and so on. > - The tricky part comes with a major change, and for that we’d have to > bump the version number up to 3.0.0. We could either carry on from here as > Tony suggested and make a new branch for 2.x work, or we could just assume > everything else will be part of the next major release. > > I wouldn’t say this is the ideal solution, but it might be easiest. > > Thanks > Justin > > > > On January 6, 2017 at 7:35:43 AM, Tony Atkins (t...@raisingthefloor.org) > wrote: > > Hi, All. > > I was thinking about this very thing yesterday. For the near future, I > think Antranig's suggestion is fine. > > As our community continues to grow, I would argue that we need to adopt a > strategy that better supports minor and/or patch releases between major > releases. Although we cannot know whether our next release is major, > minor, or a patch, we do know that there will be another release, and it > would be good for us to discipline ourselves and learn to at least estimate > how big each change we make is. > > My initial thought is that we would create a branch for the next presumed > patch and minor release and leave master for the next major release. When > submitting new work, we would start with whichever branch most closely > matches the scope of the change we are making. In choosing a starting > branch, each of us implicitly has to think about and discuss the scope of a > change with others. > > So, for example, we have just release 2.0.0 and have not released any > later versions. We could create a 2.0.1 branch, and a 2.1.0 branch, each > of which has that version in their package.json. The version in master > would be updated to 3.0.0. Bug fixes that are backward compatible would > be submitted against the 2.0.1 branch. New features that do not break > previous functionality would be submitted against the 2.1.0 branch. > Breaking changes would be submitted against master. > > This requires a bit of extra work when cutting a release. When we release > 2.0.1, we create a 2.0.2 branch. When we release 2.1.0, we create a 2.2.0 > branch and a 2.1.1 branch. When we release 3.0.0, we create a 3.0.1 > branch, and a 3.1.0 branch, and update the master version to 4.0.0. There > are existing tools that manage this for you, we could also modify the > fluid-publish script to take care of much of this. > > The branch structure would require some extra work in preparing for a > minor or major release, i. e. we would have to make sure to merge upward, > merging changes made to the 2.0.1 branch that we want to preserve in 2.1, > for example. This in theory could be largely automatic for patch and minor > releases, but would need to be more of a manual process for major releases. > > As a simpler alternative, I could see us adopting this incrementally, by > having a 2.1 branch and master, and at least dividing work according to > whether it's appropriate for a minor or major release. That would > represent less additional work in managing branches, but would at least get > us started in the important practice of drawing a clear line between > breaking and non-breaking changes in future releases. > > Cheers, > > > Tony > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Antranig Basman < > antranig.bas...@colorado.edu> wrote: > >> One outcome from our community meeting on 21st Dec 2016 looking forward >> to Infusion beyond the 2.0 release was a proposal that we change our system >> for numbering dev releases of Infusion. Until now we have operated a policy >> that the version number of Infusion in trunk is derived from the *next* >> version of Infusion to be released - for example, our package.json has >> shown a version of 2.0.0 for many months, and our "in-code" namespace >> version has been fluid_2_0_0. >> >> This also implies that all dev releases made to date via the >> fluid-publish module have been of the form 2.0.0-dev.xxxxxxxxx >> >> The proposal (currently enjoying the status of "silent acceptance" by >> virtue of this still being the condition of trunk after the release) is >> that we leave all these versions just as they are, and flip our policy so >> that the versions shown in trunk will from henceforth always represent the >> *previous* release rather than the upcoming release. >> >> The reasons for this are primarily driven by semver semantics >> http://semver.org/ - it would seem impossible to anticipate before the >> fact whether the upcoming release will be a major, minor, or patch version >> - this status could change on the basis of a single commit, and it seems >> too much of a burden, as well as highly noisy, to expect that anyone >> merging a pull request which in effect changes the status of the upcoming >> release to do the work of renumbering all the versions in trunk. >> >> There had been a further driver in the form of a bug in fluid-publish >> which has since been fixed in the branch currently in review - >> https://github.com/fluid-project/fluid-publish/pull/5 - that the "most >> recently published dev release" would supersede all previous proper >> releases. This is no longer relevant since the bug has been fixed. However, >> adopting this policy will create the oddity that pre-2.0 release and >> post-2.0 (but pre next official) release dev releases of Infusion will be >> somewhat indistinguishable in that they will all have versions of the form >> 2.0.0-dev.xxxxxxxxx - however, this is where our dev release numbering >> policy comes in handy in that we can still refer to the date field to note >> that any of these dated after Dec 6th 2016 (e.g. >> 2.0.0-dev.20161219T170555Z.5778f7e) must be post-2.0 release dev >> releases. >> >> Any comments/suggestions? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antranig >> _______________________________________________________ >> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca >> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, >> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work >> > > _______________________________________________________ > fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work > >
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
