You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> on 2010/05/04 17:59:14 UTC
Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
As our 0.6 release process took quite some time, I believe it is time
to assign the 0.8 release manager (any volenteers?) and to agree on
a date for feature freeze for 0.8.
I would suggest in April 16th -- A random pick.
Suggest another if you like.
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
On 6 May 2010 09:58, Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Le 06/05/2010 10:31, Gordon Sim a écrit :
>>
>> On 05/06/2010 08:36 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
>>>
>>> Aren't we missing 0.7? I know the kernel guys used to alternate dev /
>>> prod , odd/ even but I thought they stopped as it was confusing to users.
>>>
>>> Why should Qpid be following an odd/even versioning scheme?
>>
>> There was a debate about this last year:
>>
>> http://apache-qpid-developers.2158895.n2.nabble.com/Release-numbering-suggestion-tt4204156.html
I recall this discussion and recall at the time thinking that it was
needing further discussion.
> I find it a bit confusing too. After the 0.5 and 0.6 releases I wouldn't
> expect a jump to 0.8. And I guess many users will ask the same question.
>
> There is an alternative that wasn't proposed in the discussion, that's the
> addition of a suffix to the version number. Something like 0.7-dev or
> 0.7-SNAPSHOT to specify it's a development version, that's a common
> practice.
To me this is a much better approach.
Martin
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
>
--
Martin Ritchie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:00 AM
>> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
>>
>>
>> On 05/06/2010 02:50 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> > Le 06/05/2010 14:22, Andrew Stitcher a écrit :
>> >
>> >> The decision has been taken
>> >
>> > I may have missed something, but it seems that was just quickly
>> > discussed before Christmas while some people were on
>> holiday, and no
>> > vote took place to settle the consensus.
>>
>> There was indeed no vote or formal statement of consensus. My
>> recollection was that there was general agreement by the end of the
>> thread, but perhaps that was not the case.
>>
>> Ultimately I think it comes down to a largely subjective opinion on
>> whether the confusion from having gaps in the sequence is greater or
>> less than the value of having an unambiguous release version
>> that can in
>> no way be confused with any intermediary developmental version.
>>
>> Shall we take a straw poll to see where the majority lie and go with
>> that? Or does anyone have other suggestions on how to reach consensus?
>
> It's been nearly 6 months now since this was decided in one form or
> another. Version numbering is like brace positioning or indenting -
> there are strong feelings on each side and never shall they meet. And it
> doesn't make any real difference in the long run. At some point you just
> have to make a decision and go. So let's just accept that the decision
> was made, even if imperfectly, and get back to work. If we go through a
> few releases and there are demonstrable problems we should revisit it
> then.
>
> Carl proposed April 16, which I can only assume was some kind of typo or
> time warp brought on by US income tax deadline mania ;-) How about
> feature-freezing around the end of June and release mid-July?
>
> -Steve
Spot on. If we debate about this we can do it until the cows come home.
Frankly I dislike the proposed mechanism, but I also don't really care
enough to -1 it.
What I really care and what I am really worried about is,
1.) That we don't do enough releases in a calendar year.
2.) Each release cycle takes quite a bit of time.
3.) We never stick to the dates we propose and miss them by miles.
4.) The release manager is more often left stranded without enough
community support.
I'd say pick some number and lets get the ball rolling.
We are already approaching the middle of the year and we are pretty
close in not achieving our original goal of having quarterly releases
in this year as well.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>.
On 05/06/2010 10:47 AM, Steve Huston wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:00 AM
>> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
>>
>> There was indeed no vote or formal statement of consensus. My
>> recollection was that there was general agreement by the end of the
>> thread, but perhaps that was not the case.
>>
>> Ultimately I think it comes down to a largely subjective opinion on
>> whether the confusion from having gaps in the sequence is greater or
>> less than the value of having an unambiguous release version
>> that can in
>> no way be confused with any intermediary developmental version.
>>
>> Shall we take a straw poll to see where the majority lie and go with
>> that? Or does anyone have other suggestions on how to reach consensus?
>>
> It's been nearly 6 months now since this was decided in one form or
> another. Version numbering is like brace positioning or indenting -
> there are strong feelings on each side and never shall they meet. And it
> doesn't make any real difference in the long run. At some point you just
> have to make a decision and go. So let's just accept that the decision
> was made, even if imperfectly, and get back to work. If we go through a
> few releases and there are demonstrable problems we should revisit it
> then.
>
Perhaps we should start with a straw poll on whether to use the even /
odd approach, versus consider other options? I think a lot of us have
been running in this direction, and I think there's something to be said
for stability.
If I were picking an approach from scratch, it would not be the even /
odd approach, but I really want to avoid changing it now unless there's
a compelling reason to do so.
So I'd like a straw poll on these two options:
1. Use the even / odd approach
2. Consider other approaches
Jonathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:00 AM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
>
>
> On 05/06/2010 02:50 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Le 06/05/2010 14:22, Andrew Stitcher a écrit :
> >
> >> The decision has been taken
> >
> > I may have missed something, but it seems that was just quickly
> > discussed before Christmas while some people were on
> holiday, and no
> > vote took place to settle the consensus.
>
> There was indeed no vote or formal statement of consensus. My
> recollection was that there was general agreement by the end of the
> thread, but perhaps that was not the case.
>
> Ultimately I think it comes down to a largely subjective opinion on
> whether the confusion from having gaps in the sequence is greater or
> less than the value of having an unambiguous release version
> that can in
> no way be confused with any intermediary developmental version.
>
> Shall we take a straw poll to see where the majority lie and go with
> that? Or does anyone have other suggestions on how to reach consensus?
It's been nearly 6 months now since this was decided in one form or
another. Version numbering is like brace positioning or indenting -
there are strong feelings on each side and never shall they meet. And it
doesn't make any real difference in the long run. At some point you just
have to make a decision and go. So let's just accept that the decision
was made, even if imperfectly, and get back to work. If we go through a
few releases and there are demonstrable problems we should revisit it
then.
Carl proposed April 16, which I can only assume was some kind of typo or
time warp brought on by US income tax deadline mania ;-) How about
feature-freezing around the end of June and release mid-July?
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 05/06/2010 02:50 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 06/05/2010 14:22, Andrew Stitcher a écrit :
>
>> The decision has been taken
>
> I may have missed something, but it seems that was just quickly
> discussed before Christmas while some people were on holiday, and no
> vote took place to settle the consensus.
There was indeed no vote or formal statement of consensus. My
recollection was that there was general agreement by the end of the
thread, but perhaps that was not the case.
Ultimately I think it comes down to a largely subjective opinion on
whether the confusion from having gaps in the sequence is greater or
less than the value of having an unambiguous release version that can in
no way be confused with any intermediary developmental version.
Shall we take a straw poll to see where the majority lie and go with
that? Or does anyone have other suggestions on how to reach consensus?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
Le 06/05/2010 14:22, Andrew Stitcher a écrit :
> The decision has been taken
I may have missed something, but it seems that was just quickly
discussed before Christmas while some people were on holiday, and no
vote took place to settle the consensus.
Emmanuel Bourg
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 10:58 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 06/05/2010 10:31, Gordon Sim a écrit :
> > On 05/06/2010 08:36 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
> >> Aren't we missing 0.7? I know the kernel guys used to alternate dev /
> >> prod , odd/ even but I thought they stopped as it was confusing to users.
> >>
> >> Why should Qpid be following an odd/even versioning scheme?
> >
> > There was a debate about this last year:
> > http://apache-qpid-developers.2158895.n2.nabble.com/Release-numbering-suggestion-tt4204156.html
>
> I find it a bit confusing too. After the 0.5 and 0.6 releases I wouldn't
> expect a jump to 0.8. And I guess many users will ask the same question.
>
> There is an alternative that wasn't proposed in the discussion, that's
> the addition of a suffix to the version number. Something like 0.7-dev
> or 0.7-SNAPSHOT to specify it's a development version, that's a common
> practice.
This is simply a "bikeshed" discussion [see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeshed].
The decision has been taken, we've not even given it enough time to see
if it works or not. Can we just go back to doing productive things?
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
Le 06/05/2010 10:31, Gordon Sim a écrit :
> On 05/06/2010 08:36 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
>> Aren't we missing 0.7? I know the kernel guys used to alternate dev /
>> prod , odd/ even but I thought they stopped as it was confusing to users.
>>
>> Why should Qpid be following an odd/even versioning scheme?
>
> There was a debate about this last year:
> http://apache-qpid-developers.2158895.n2.nabble.com/Release-numbering-suggestion-tt4204156.html
I find it a bit confusing too. After the 0.5 and 0.6 releases I wouldn't
expect a jump to 0.8. And I guess many users will ask the same question.
There is an alternative that wasn't proposed in the discussion, that's
the addition of a suffix to the version number. Something like 0.7-dev
or 0.7-SNAPSHOT to specify it's a development version, that's a common
practice.
Emmanuel Bourg
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 05/06/2010 08:36 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
> Aren't we missing 0.7? I know the kernel guys used to alternate dev /
> prod , odd/ even but I thought they stopped as it was confusing to users.
>
> Why should Qpid be following an odd/even versioning scheme?
There was a debate about this last year:
http://apache-qpid-developers.2158895.n2.nabble.com/Release-numbering-suggestion-tt4204156.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Time to start talking about date for 0.8 close down
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
Aren't we missing 0.7? I know the kernel guys used to alternate dev /
prod , odd/ even but I thought they stopped as it was confusing to
users.
Why should Qpid be following an odd/even versioning scheme?
Martin
--
Martin
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2010, at 16:59, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> As our 0.6 release process took quite some time, I believe it is time
> to assign the 0.8 release manager (any volenteers?) and to agree on
> a date for feature freeze for 0.8.
>
> I would suggest in April 16th -- A random pick.
>
> Suggest another if you like.
> Carl.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org