You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Christopher <ct...@apache.org> on 2013/05/25 19:56:52 UTC
[DISCUSS] The State of Old Versions
I did a quick check through the JIRA to see if there were any
outstanding issues on old versions. It seems we've done a pretty good
job of keeping things up-to-date.
I especially wanted to see if there would be any reason to maintain
unreleased working branches for these older versions if we were to
switch to git.
Here's the summary pages of the latest unreleased versions of each line:
1.3.7: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12321844
1.4.4: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12324151
1.5.1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12324399
1.6.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12322468
I took the liberty of putting tentative release dates in JIRA for the
unreleased versions, except 1.3.7.
I think we should shut down 1.3.7 as end-of-life, either by releasing
a quick source-only tag with the additional two fixes since 1.3.6 or
throw them away and leave 1.3.6 as the final 1.3 tag. Either way, I
think we should remove its working branch in svn, and drop continuous
development support for it. Notice, there are only two minor fixes in
1.3.7 from 1.3.6.
I think we should release 1.4.4 sometime within the next month, so we
can focus on supporting 1.5 as the main stable line, and new features
in 1.6.
I anticipated a 1.5.1 release in about 2 months.
I think we should anticipate a 1.6 release 6 months from the last
release, if not sooner. This would mean a feature freeze in about 4
months.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: [DISCUSS] The State of Old Versions
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Mike-
If there's a ticket that is marked as affecting 1.4.3 that you think
should be done in 1.4.4, you can suggest tagging it with an
anticipated fixVersion of 1.4.4 (or just do it so its more likely to
get reviewed prior to the next 1.4 bugfix release).
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Nobody's touched this for a week, but I think the conversation is important
> enough that it shouldn't die. I'll tackle these in version order.
>
> 1.3 - I agree with releasing a source only tag of 1.3.7 and calling it
> end-of-life. The changes are there, throwing them away seems silly (and
> rude?). That said, I'm not volunteering to be the one to put it together,
> so I feel a bit guilty suggesting that somebody else do it.
>
> 1.4 - There are a dozen bugs already marked as fixed. There are 5 more
> issues marked as fix for 1.4.4 that are yet unresolved. There are 15 issues
> marked as affecting 1.4.3 that are still open, some of which I would really
> like to see make their way into a 1.4.4. Some of those issues look fairly
> major and could use a few more eyes on them. Some time in June seems
> reasonable.
>
> 1.5 - So far these tickets look like mostly documentation fixes, but a few
> of them look pretty important. ACCUMULO-1449 and ACCUMULO-1456 were the
> first to catch my eye. That said, as 1.5 gets run on more systems I'm sure
> more bugs will crop up. Personally, I wouldn't plan on releasing anything
> until the community starts asking for it.
>
> 1.6 - Feature freeze in 4 months would be... September? That gives plenty
> of time to run test and integration and still get something out by the end
> of the year. I think this is the release that people were talking about
> rolling to Java 7 and Hadoop 2, both of which will require more than the
> usual amount of testing, in my opinion. Six months after 1.5 would be
> mid-November, which I'm not confident in, but it's a nice target to shoot
> for. The major worry would be that if the timeline slips past that, then
> there won't be a release until sometime in 2014, given the tendency for
> activity to slow down around the holidays.
>
> Thank you for starting the discussion, Christopher. I hope that other
> people chime in as well.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I did a quick check through the JIRA to see if there were any
>> outstanding issues on old versions. It seems we've done a pretty good
>> job of keeping things up-to-date.
>>
>> I especially wanted to see if there would be any reason to maintain
>> unreleased working branches for these older versions if we were to
>> switch to git.
>>
>> Here's the summary pages of the latest unreleased versions of each line:
>>
>> 1.3.7:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12321844
>> 1.4.4:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12324151
>> 1.5.1:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12324399
>> 1.6.0:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12322468
>>
>> I took the liberty of putting tentative release dates in JIRA for the
>> unreleased versions, except 1.3.7.
>>
>> I think we should shut down 1.3.7 as end-of-life, either by releasing
>> a quick source-only tag with the additional two fixes since 1.3.6 or
>> throw them away and leave 1.3.6 as the final 1.3 tag. Either way, I
>> think we should remove its working branch in svn, and drop continuous
>> development support for it. Notice, there are only two minor fixes in
>> 1.3.7 from 1.3.6.
>>
>> I think we should release 1.4.4 sometime within the next month, so we
>> can focus on supporting 1.5 as the main stable line, and new features
>> in 1.6.
>>
>> I anticipated a 1.5.1 release in about 2 months.
>>
>> I think we should anticipate a 1.6 release 6 months from the last
>> release, if not sooner. This would mean a feature freeze in about 4
>> months.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] The State of Old Versions
Posted by Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>.
+1 to dropping the branch
If someone else wants to volunteer to make the release, I'll change my
mind. :-)
-Eric
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> It has been suggested that going through the effort of releasing 1.3.7
> is not worth it. So, I'm leaning towards dropping the fixVersion of
> 1.3.7 on the two tickets, and simply dropping the branch, myself.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 5/31/13 6:33 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>
> >> 1.3 - I agree with releasing a source only tag of 1.3.7 and calling it
> >> end-of-life. The changes are there, throwing them away seems silly (and
> >> rude?). That said, I'm not volunteering to be the one to put it
> together,
> >> so I feel a bit guilty suggesting that somebody else do it.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] The State of Old Versions
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
It has been suggested that going through the effort of releasing 1.3.7
is not worth it. So, I'm leaning towards dropping the fixVersion of
1.3.7 on the two tickets, and simply dropping the branch, myself.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 5/31/13 6:33 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>
>> 1.3 - I agree with releasing a source only tag of 1.3.7 and calling it
>> end-of-life. The changes are there, throwing them away seems silly (and
>> rude?). That said, I'm not volunteering to be the one to put it together,
>> so I feel a bit guilty suggesting that somebody else do it.
Re: [DISCUSS] The State of Old Versions
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 5/31/13 6:33 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> 1.3 - I agree with releasing a source only tag of 1.3.7 and calling it
> end-of-life. The changes are there, throwing them away seems silly (and
> rude?). That said, I'm not volunteering to be the one to put it together,
> so I feel a bit guilty suggesting that somebody else do it.
Re: [DISCUSS] The State of Old Versions
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
Nobody's touched this for a week, but I think the conversation is important
enough that it shouldn't die. I'll tackle these in version order.
1.3 - I agree with releasing a source only tag of 1.3.7 and calling it
end-of-life. The changes are there, throwing them away seems silly (and
rude?). That said, I'm not volunteering to be the one to put it together,
so I feel a bit guilty suggesting that somebody else do it.
1.4 - There are a dozen bugs already marked as fixed. There are 5 more
issues marked as fix for 1.4.4 that are yet unresolved. There are 15 issues
marked as affecting 1.4.3 that are still open, some of which I would really
like to see make their way into a 1.4.4. Some of those issues look fairly
major and could use a few more eyes on them. Some time in June seems
reasonable.
1.5 - So far these tickets look like mostly documentation fixes, but a few
of them look pretty important. ACCUMULO-1449 and ACCUMULO-1456 were the
first to catch my eye. That said, as 1.5 gets run on more systems I'm sure
more bugs will crop up. Personally, I wouldn't plan on releasing anything
until the community starts asking for it.
1.6 - Feature freeze in 4 months would be... September? That gives plenty
of time to run test and integration and still get something out by the end
of the year. I think this is the release that people were talking about
rolling to Java 7 and Hadoop 2, both of which will require more than the
usual amount of testing, in my opinion. Six months after 1.5 would be
mid-November, which I'm not confident in, but it's a nice target to shoot
for. The major worry would be that if the timeline slips past that, then
there won't be a release until sometime in 2014, given the tendency for
activity to slow down around the holidays.
Thank you for starting the discussion, Christopher. I hope that other
people chime in as well.
Mike
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> I did a quick check through the JIRA to see if there were any
> outstanding issues on old versions. It seems we've done a pretty good
> job of keeping things up-to-date.
>
> I especially wanted to see if there would be any reason to maintain
> unreleased working branches for these older versions if we were to
> switch to git.
>
> Here's the summary pages of the latest unreleased versions of each line:
>
> 1.3.7:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12321844
> 1.4.4:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12324151
> 1.5.1:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12324399
> 1.6.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO/fixforversion/12322468
>
> I took the liberty of putting tentative release dates in JIRA for the
> unreleased versions, except 1.3.7.
>
> I think we should shut down 1.3.7 as end-of-life, either by releasing
> a quick source-only tag with the additional two fixes since 1.3.6 or
> throw them away and leave 1.3.6 as the final 1.3 tag. Either way, I
> think we should remove its working branch in svn, and drop continuous
> development support for it. Notice, there are only two minor fixes in
> 1.3.7 from 1.3.6.
>
> I think we should release 1.4.4 sometime within the next month, so we
> can focus on supporting 1.5 as the main stable line, and new features
> in 1.6.
>
> I anticipated a 1.5.1 release in about 2 months.
>
> I think we should anticipate a 1.6 release 6 months from the last
> release, if not sooner. This would mean a feature freeze in about 4
> months.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>