Archiving old releases

[Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org>]

All,

Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
should archive.

For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
archive everything else.

B.

Re: Archiving old releases

[Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>]

Noah, any objections?

On 6 June 2011 17:20, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then?
>>
>> When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we
>> should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it
>> soon.
>>
>> B.
>>
>
> Yes, this is exactly what I was proposing.
>
>> On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
>>>> policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
>>>> version, anything else should be archived."
>>>
>>> Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be.
>>>
>>>> I have been instructed to
>>>> specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
>>>> under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.
>>>
>>> Again, where?
>>>
>>> This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists.
>>>
>>> I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion.
>>>
>>> Anyone see a problem with this?
>>>
>>>> As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
>>>> shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
>>>> us from linking to the archived versions.
>>>
>>> These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.
>>
>

Re: Archiving old releases

[Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then?
>
> When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we
> should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it
> soon.
>
> B.
>

Yes, this is exactly what I was proposing.

> On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>>> To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
>>> policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
>>> version, anything else should be archived."
>>
>> Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be.
>>
>>> I have been instructed to
>>> specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
>>> under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.
>>
>> Again, where?
>>
>> This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists.
>>
>> I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion.
>>
>> Anyone see a problem with this?
>>
>>> As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
>>> shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
>>> us from linking to the archived versions.
>>
>> These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.
>

Re: Archiving old releases

[Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>]

How about we keep 1.1.0, 1.0.2 and 0.11.2 then?

When 1.0.3 is released, we'll archive 1.0.2 at least. I don't think we
should be encouraging downloads of 0.11.2, so I'd like to archive it
soon.

B.

On 6 June 2011 16:58, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
>> policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
>> version, anything else should be archived."
>
> Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be.
>
>> I have been instructed to
>> specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
>> under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.
>
> Again, where?
>
> This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists.
>
> I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion.
>
> Anyone see a problem with this?
>
>> As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
>> shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
>> us from linking to the archived versions.
>
> These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.

Re: Archiving old releases

[Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
>> policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
>> version, anything else should be archived."
>
> Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be.
>

This was a discussion on IRC to double check that I had not
misinterpreted anything in the policy at [1] or the various emails
that have been traded around the various lists from infrastructure
that spawned this thread.

>> I have been instructed to
>> specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
>> under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.
>
> Again, where?
>
> This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists.
>

It is on mailing lists. The original email from Mark Thomas to the
infrastructure@ and pmcs@ lists had some specific examples of what it
is they're expecting.

> I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion.
>

I think you're being overly concerned about upgrade paths. These
versions are still in the archive if someone needs access to them. I'm
not currently aware of any upgrade path that requires having any of
the old bug release versions. And if there is then we really messed up
somewhere...

> Anyone see a problem with this?
>

Not sure what this is referring to.

>> As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
>> shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
>> us from linking to the archived versions.
>
> These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.

I've not seen that policy. If it is, then so be it.

The bottom line is that we've been told many times that we need to
remove these old bug fix versions unless there's a very specific
reason to keep them. I know of no reason to keep them. If someone can
point at a specific reason that they need to be kept then that is a
different issue.

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#when-to-archive

P.S. If you read that link previous to about five minutes ago you'll
want to re-read it.

Re: Archiving old releases

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Paul Davis wrote:

> To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
> policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
> version, anything else should be archived."

Where did he tell you this? Is it on a mailing list somewhere? My concern here is that the official Apache policy is actually decidedly vague on the matter. Which I have always interpreted as being quite intentional, so that projects can decide for themselves what the policy should be.

> I have been instructed to
> specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
> under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.

Again, where?

This stuff should be happening on the mailing lists.

I agree that this makes sense, but I have been concerned for a while that in doing so, there maybe be certain circumstances where some technical detail means that not providing a smooth bugfix upgrade path may cause problems. That was one of the primary things I was hoping to clarify by starting this discussion.

Anyone see a problem with this?

> As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
> shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
> us from linking to the archived versions.

These two things are the same. The policy is that the downloads.html page must link through to the mirrors, to reduce the load on the Apache servers. So whatever we remove from the dist directory needs to be removed from this page.

Re: Archiving old releases

[Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:44, Robert Newson wrote:
>
>> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
>> should archive.
>>
>> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
>> archive everything else.
>
>
> The ASF has asked us to tidy our distribution directory.
>
> So I would like to use this opportunity to clarify our archive policy going forward.
>
> The things to note are:
>
>  * All releases are permanently archived by the ASF
>
>  * Only current releases need to be in the main distribution directory
>
>  * The main distribution directory is mirrored around the world
>
>  * This is why we need to limit our use of it
>
>  * These current releases are linked to from downloads.html
>
>  * Whatever we have advertised there is what is mirrored
>
> The questions I have in mind are:
>
>  * How many point releases do we want to have on downloads.html at any one time?
>
>  * If we release X.X.1, do we remove X.X.0 from that page?
>
> I think that about covers it.
>
>

To reiterate some points. Tony Stevenson tells me the infrastructure
policy is, "We expect PMcs to only keep 1 copy of each branch/major
version, anything else should be archived." I have been instructed to
specifically remove 0.11.0, 0.11.1, and 1.0.1 from the dist directory
under threat of cattle prod and apparently cuddle kitties.

The number of point releases to keep is less strict. I think everyone
would agree that having two is the minimum. And I don't think anyone
is against removing 0.11.2 as is being proposed. I would +1 for
keeping it at two to give us a defined way to drop support for older
releases.

As to what's listed in downloads.html I'll leave that to the bike
shedding except to point out there's no policy I know of that prevents
us from linking to the archived versions.

HTH,
Paul Davis

Re: Archiving old releases

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:44, Robert Newson wrote:

> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
> should archive.
> 
> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
> archive everything else.


The ASF has asked us to tidy our distribution directory.

So I would like to use this opportunity to clarify our archive policy going forward.

The things to note are:

 * All releases are permanently archived by the ASF

 * Only current releases need to be in the main distribution directory

 * The main distribution directory is mirrored around the world

 * This is why we need to limit our use of it

 * These current releases are linked to from downloads.html

 * Whatever we have advertised there is what is mirrored

The questions I have in mind are:

 * How many point releases do we want to have on downloads.html at any one time?

 * If we release X.X.1, do we remove X.X.0 from that page?

I think that about covers it.

Re: Archiving old releases

[Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>]

I say update it to say to upgrade to 1.0.2 (or newer) and leave it
just above 1.0.2

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> what about the 1.0.0 warning? It's part of the 1.0.1 text.
>
> On 6 June 2011 23:38, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Agreed.
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2011, at 23:12, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
>>>> should archive.
>>>>
>>>> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
>>>> archive everything else.
>>>
>>> Sounds good.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Archiving old releases

[Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org>]

what about the 1.0.0 warning? It's part of the 1.0.1 text.

On 6 June 2011 23:38, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 23:12, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
>>> should archive.
>>>
>>> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
>>> archive everything else.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>
>

Re: Archiving old releases

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

Agreed.

On 6 Jun 2011, at 23:12, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> 
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
>> should archive.
>> 
>> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
>> archive everything else.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Cheers
> Jan
> -- 
> 

Re: Archiving old releases

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

On 6 Jun 2011, at 07:44, Robert Newson wrote:

> All,
> 
> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
> should archive.
> 
> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
> archive everything else.

Sounds good.

Cheers
Jan
-- 

Re: Archiving old releases

[Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 16:44, Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
> archive everything else.

Sounds just right to me.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: Archiving old releases

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

On 6 Jun 2011, at 16:00, till wrote:

> I don't care so much about the CGI script, but I'm asking from a
> package maintainer perspective. So let's say I use a mirror to
> download CouchDB releases, etc. -- does archiving mean they are
> removed from mirrors?

Yep, that is the point of archiving them. We archive to reduce the burden on the people who provide the mirrors. If you have code that uses a direct link to the dist directory, this will also break. But this has always been the case, and will always be the case. We're only discussion when this should happen within a release lifecycle.

Re: Archiving old releases

[till <ti...@php.net>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:47, till wrote:
>
>> Does 'archiving' break download links?
>
> Archiving involves removing the link from downloads.html, which points to a CGI script which automatically picks the closest mirror to your location. It also involved moving the release to an archive distribution directory on apache.org.

I don't care so much about the CGI script, but I'm asking from a
package maintainer perspective. So let's say I use a mirror to
download CouchDB releases, etc. -- does archiving mean they are
removed from mirrors?

Till

Re: Archiving old releases

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:47, till wrote:

> Does 'archiving' break download links?

Archiving involves removing the link from downloads.html, which points to a CGI script which automatically picks the closest mirror to your location. It also involved moving the release to an archive distribution directory on apache.org.

Re: Archiving old releases

[till <ti...@php.net>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> Now that 1.1.0 is released I want your opinions on which releases we
> should archive.
>
> For my part, I'd like Downloads to hold just 1.1.0 and 1.0.2 and
> archive everything else.
>
> B.
>

Generally, +1

Does 'archiving' break download links?

Till