OK. Since we have decided to not have remote release branches, I'm going to delete 0.12.x and 0.13.x branches from the repo by EOD. If anyone has objections, please let us know.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < [email protected]> wrote: > BTW, kick ass that you brought it to list and discussed. Boom! > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected] > > > Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:10 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: Benjamin Hindman <[email protected]>, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process > > >Vinod, BenH and I chatted at length about our branching / tagging strategy > >for releases. So I'm taking it here for further discussion. > > > >We currently were using branches of the style 0.12.x to track the progress > >of the 0.12.x line of releases. This stemmed from the svn days of mesos, > >and has several flaws: > > > >1. We sometimes need to amend history on that branch, either due to > >mistakes or due to #2 here. > >2. RC N is not necessarily fast-forward-able from RC N-1. > >3. Users sometimes use these branches (and we don't provide any guarantees > >on their validity currently). > > > >We are considering using a cleaner linux-style approach, where tags are > >used for release candidates, and releases. For an example, see: > >http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/refs/tags. > >Rather than having 0.12.x as a branch, we will have tags 0.12.0-rc1, > >0.12.0-rc2, 0.12.0, etc as we produce RCs and releases. > > > >The process would be as follows: > > > >1. Tag a candidate: 0.12.0-rc1. > >2. Call a VOTE to release RC1. > >3. If successful, release and tag 0.12.0 from 0.12.0-rc1. > >4. Otherwise, progress with 0.12.0-rc2 by creating a local branch off of > >0.12.0-rc1 and applying the necessary commits. > > > >History can be seen using 'git log 0.12.0-rc1..0.12.0-rc2'. > > > >This means tags are immutable, and a source of truth for the RCs and > >releases. > > > >For now, I will be punting on removing the 0.12.x branch, and will simply > >create a 0.12.0-rc1 tag to call a VOTE with. But I'd like to gather > >thoughts, +1's or -1's. > > > >There's no documentation that I know of. So, yes documenting the checklist > >> is a great idea. > >> Also note, that we create branches of the form "0.12.x" instead of > >> "0.12.0". This makes it easy to cherry pick commits for future bug fix > >> releases and release candidates. > >> Also, you might want to checkout the release.sh script (if there are > >>some > >> updates to it) from the master branch into 0.12.x. > > > > > > > >On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Looking good, Ben M! > >> > >> Thanks for throwing this up! I've prefixed the subject line > >> with a [DISCUSS] thread. Not a requirement by any means but > >> makes it nice when looking in mail-archives.apache.org and > >> other threaded browsers to see like minded discussion threads :) > >> > >> So, putting this up on a wiki would be great. > >> Looking at: > >> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/mesos.html > >> > >> > >> We have a confluence wiki here: > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MESOS/Index > >> > >> > >> I don't have karma to edit it (need to remove the docs exist > >> at Github part). I'm working with infra to get karma. Once I > >> get it we should add a release process page there that simply > >> copies the below :) > >> > >> Either way +1 to proceed with step #1. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > >> Senior Computer Scientist > >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > >> Email: [email protected] > >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]> > >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" > >><[email protected] > >> > > >> Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:23 PM > >> To: Benjamin Hindman <[email protected]>, Vinod Kone > >><[email protected]> > >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Release process. > >> > >> >Now that 0.11.0 is out, we should continue freeing up the backlog and > >> >proceed with 0.12.0. I'll be taking care of this release and I'd like > >>to > >> >document the release process to make it easier for others to help out > >>with > >> >releases in the future. Is there already documentation somewhere? > >>Here's > >> >what I've inferred: > >> > > >> >1. First I'll gather the JIRA tickets for the CHANGELOG. > >> > > >> >2. Send out a review / commit the CHANGELOG updates. > >> > > >> >3. Cherry pick the CHANGELOG onto 0.12.0. > >> > > >> >4. Run 'git checkout 0.12.0 && ./support/release.sh 0.12.0 1'. > >> > > >> >5. Mail [email protected] and > >> >[email protected] a VOTE. > >> > > >> >6. After a successful VOTE, add it to the website(s)? > >> > > >> >7. Upload the jar to artifactory, I see Vinod is having issues with > >>that > >> >at > >> >the moment. > >> > > >> >Missing anything? > >> > >> > >
