Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

[Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>]

On 24 April 2013 14:46, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 14:14 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Thinking about this, we might want to clarify the difference between a
>> > release not being supported, and a release being archived. Obviously, it
>> > makes no sense to keep around two bugfix versions of the same minor
>> release
>> > line. (In this case, 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.) But 1.2.1 was released in January,
>> > so I think we'll probably want to "support" it for 12 months, as we've
>> > previously discussed. I am not exactly sure what "support" means in this
>> > context. I guess when we talk about supporting releases, what we actually
>> > mean is that we support major/minor release lines. So, in this case, we
>> > "support" 1.2.x, in so much as we will continue to apply bugfixes to that
>> > branch.

Sorry for bumping an old thread up, but I was looking on the mirrors
for 1.2.2 windows binaries and didn't find them.

I re-read http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/CurrentReleases#Archived_Releases
and this actually makes sense as we've agreed "Support Major
Versions". i.e. 1.3.x is the latest in the 1.x major version series.
But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?

My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
little bear brain today.

TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
mirrors, or shall I just point people to
http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
add a link on our website?


A+
Dave

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
> add a link on our website?

I think it makes sense to keep the latest 1.2.x release on the mirrors
until 1.4.0 is released.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

Right. I'm gonna take a look at this in a bit. Once I've figured out what I
think we should keep around, I'll do a lazy PROPOSAL thread. Thanks for
bringing this up Jan. I'm gonna fold your argument into the release
procedure too, so we don't forget it. :)


On 26 May 2013 15:02, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:

> Actually, another question: if we're gonna move some old releases back
> into dist for things like Homebrew, which releases? Do we just want to move
> 1.2.2 (quite recent) or do we also want to do 1.2.1? What about even older
> ones?
>
>
> On 26 May 2013 14:56, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> My point is: it's has already been removed. So I'm wondering if you think
>> we should move it back. We've never done something like this, so I wanna be
>> sure what you're proposing. :)
>>
>>
>> On 26 May 2013 14:50, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2013, at 09:47 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the
>>> 1.2.2
>>> > release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for
>>> > future releases?
>>>
>>> I don’t think it is too much effort to keep it around, is it?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Dave,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> See the following thread:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
>>> >>> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
>>> >>> following reasons:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
>>> >>> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Yep.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a
>>> release, we
>>> >>> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be
>>> available in
>>> >>> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you
>>> >> need
>>> >>> them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing
>>> >> 1.2.2
>>> >>> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and
>>> install
>>> >>> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any
>>> more. (We
>>> >>> want them do use 1.3.0.)
>>> >>
>>> >> People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website
>>> or
>>> >> type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look
>>> recent”
>>> >> is a primary objective here.
>>> >>
>>> >> In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have
>>> little
>>> >> control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what
>>> state
>>> >> downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
>>> >> a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the
>>> person
>>> >> still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
>>> >> `brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t
>>> make
>>> >> obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list)
>>> would
>>> >> help.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am
>>> not
>>> >> interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our
>>> users
>>> >> and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a
>>> slightly
>>> >> (it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
>>> >> *very* latest.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
>>> >> on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
>>> >> longer.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best
>>> >> Jan
>>> >> --
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or
>>> >> bugfixes
>>> >>> to this line any more".
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into
>>> my
>>> >>>> little bear brain today.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
>>> >>> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
>>> >>> expected. :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on
>>> the
>>> >>>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
>>> >>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc?
>>> Maybe
>>> >>>> add a link on our website?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so
>>> why
>>> >>> would we want to keep it around?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> NS
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > NS
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> NS
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
>



-- 
NS

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

Actually, another question: if we're gonna move some old releases back into
dist for things like Homebrew, which releases? Do we just want to move
1.2.2 (quite recent) or do we also want to do 1.2.1? What about even older
ones?


On 26 May 2013 14:56, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:

> My point is: it's has already been removed. So I'm wondering if you think
> we should move it back. We've never done something like this, so I wanna be
> sure what you're proposing. :)
>
>
> On 26 May 2013 14:50, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 26, 2013, at 09:47 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the
>> 1.2.2
>> > release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for
>> > future releases?
>>
>> I don’t think it is too much effort to keep it around, is it?
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Dave,
>> >>>
>> >>> See the following thread:
>> >>>
>> >>> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
>> >>> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
>> >>>
>> >>> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
>> >>> following reasons:
>> >>>
>> >>> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
>> >>> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
>> >>>
>> >>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yep.
>> >>>
>> >>> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
>> >>>
>> >>> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a
>> release, we
>> >>> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be
>> available in
>> >>> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you
>> >> need
>> >>> them.
>> >>>
>> >>> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing
>> >> 1.2.2
>> >>> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and
>> install
>> >>> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more.
>> (We
>> >>> want them do use 1.3.0.)
>> >>
>> >> People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or
>> >> type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look
>> recent”
>> >> is a primary objective here.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little
>> >> control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state
>> >> downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
>> >> a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the
>> person
>> >> still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
>> >> `brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t
>> make
>> >> obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list)
>> would
>> >> help.
>> >>
>> >> I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not
>> >> interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our
>> users
>> >> and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly
>> >> (it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
>> >> *very* latest.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
>> >> on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
>> >> longer.
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >> Jan
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or
>> >> bugfixes
>> >>> to this line any more".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
>> >>>> little bear brain today.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
>> >>> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
>> >>> expected. :)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
>> >>>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
>> >>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
>> >>>> add a link on our website?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
>> >>>
>> >>> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so
>> why
>> >>> would we want to keep it around?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> NS
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > NS
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> NS
>



-- 
NS

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

My point is: it's has already been removed. So I'm wondering if you think
we should move it back. We've never done something like this, so I wanna be
sure what you're proposing. :)


On 26 May 2013 14:50, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On May 26, 2013, at 09:47 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the
> 1.2.2
> > release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for
> > future releases?
>
> I don’t think it is too much effort to keep it around, is it?
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dave,
> >>>
> >>> See the following thread:
> >>>
> >>> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
> >>> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
> >>>
> >>> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
> >>> following reasons:
> >>>
> >>> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
> >>> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
> >>>
> >>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yep.
> >>>
> >>> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
> >>>
> >>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
> >>>
> >>> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release,
> we
> >>> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available
> in
> >>> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you
> >> need
> >>> them.
> >>>
> >>> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing
> >> 1.2.2
> >>> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and
> install
> >>> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more.
> (We
> >>> want them do use 1.3.0.)
> >>
> >> People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or
> >> type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look recent”
> >> is a primary objective here.
> >>
> >> In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little
> >> control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state
> >> downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
> >> a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the person
> >> still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
> >> `brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t make
> >> obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list) would
> >> help.
> >>
> >> I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not
> >> interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our users
> >> and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly
> >> (it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
> >> *very* latest.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
> >> on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
> >> longer.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or
> >> bugfixes
> >>> to this line any more".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
> >>>> little bear brain today.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
> >>> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
> >>> expected. :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
> >>>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
> >>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
> >>>> add a link on our website?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
> >>>
> >>> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so
> why
> >>> would we want to keep it around?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> NS
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
>


-- 
NS

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

On May 26, 2013, at 09:47 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:

> You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the 1.2.2
> release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for
> future releases?

I don’t think it is too much effort to keep it around, is it?

Best
Jan
--



> 
> 
> On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dave,
>>> 
>>> See the following thread:
>>> 
>>> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
>>> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
>>> 
>>> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
>>> following reasons:
>>> 
>>> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
>>> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
>>> 
>>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yep.
>>> 
>>> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
>>> 
>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
>>> 
>>> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release, we
>>> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available in
>>> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you
>> need
>>> them.
>>> 
>>> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing
>> 1.2.2
>>> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and install
>>> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more. (We
>>> want them do use 1.3.0.)
>> 
>> People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or
>> type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look recent”
>> is a primary objective here.
>> 
>> In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little
>> control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state
>> downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
>> a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the person
>> still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
>> `brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t make
>> obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list) would
>> help.
>> 
>> I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not
>> interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our users
>> and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly
>> (it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
>> *very* latest.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
>> on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
>> longer.
>> 
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or
>> bugfixes
>>> to this line any more".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
>>>> little bear brain today.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
>>> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
>>> expected. :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
>>>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
>>>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
>>>> add a link on our website?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
>>> 
>>> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so why
>>> would we want to keep it around?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> NS
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> NS

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

You make a compelling argument, Jan. Do you think we should move the 1.2.2
release back into the dist dir, or should we just keep this in mind for
future releases?


On 26 May 2013 14:44, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > See the following thread:
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
> > http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
> >
> > Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
> > following reasons:
> >
> > * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
> > * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
> >
> > On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
> >>
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
> >
> > http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
> >
> > What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release, we
> > remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available in
> > our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you
> need
> > them.
> >
> > What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing
> 1.2.2
> > and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and install
> > it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more. (We
> > want them do use 1.3.0.)
>
> People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or
> type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look recent”
> is a primary objective here.
>
> In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little
> control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state
> downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
> a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the person
> still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
> `brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t make
> obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list) would
> help.
>
> I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not
> interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our users
> and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly
> (it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
> *very* latest.
>
>
>
> tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
> on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
> longer.
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
> > * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or
> bugfixes
> > to this line any more".
>
>
>
> >
> > My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
> >> little bear brain today.
> >>
> >
> > No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
> > changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
> > expected. :)
> >
> >
> >> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
> >> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
> >> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
> >> add a link on our website?
> >>
> >
> > Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
> >
> > We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so why
> > would we want to keep it around?
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
>


-- 
NS

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

On May 23, 2013, at 08:20 , Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:

> Dave,
> 
> See the following thread:
> 
> [DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
> http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5
> 
> Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
> following reasons:
> 
> * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
> * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible
> 
> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
>> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:
> 
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/
> 
> What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release, we
> remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available in
> our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you need
> them.
> 
> What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing 1.2.2
> and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and install
> it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more. (We
> want them do use 1.3.0.)

People don’t go to dist/ folders. They click on links on the website or
type `apt-get install couchdb`. I don’t think “making dist/ look recent”
is a primary objective here.

In fact, I think there is a danger / inconvenience here. We have little
control over what downstream packagers reference, let alone, what state
downstream user’s package repository references are in. I recently had
a support case where we had one tarball removed from dist and the person
still had a little bit out of date (but not by much) brew repo, so
`brew install couchdb` failed with tarball not found, which doesn’t make
obvious that `brew update` (refreshing the available package list) would
help.

I am sure someone can find someone else to blame for this, but I am not
interested in that, I am just concerned with the experience of our users
and we’d have a better situation, if we had them let install a slightly
(it was a .z-level version bump) out of date version than the
*very* latest.



tl;dr: Supporting a release is different from keeping a tarball around
on its original release URL and I think the latter timeframe should be
longer.

Best
Jan
--




> * When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or bugfixes
> to this line any more".



> 
> My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
>> little bear brain today.
>> 
> 
> No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
> changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
> expected. :)
> 
> 
>> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
>> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
>> add a link on our website?
>> 
> 
> Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?
> 
> We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so why
> would we want to keep it around?
> 
> -- 
> NS

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Apache CouchDB 1.2.1

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

Dave,

See the following thread:

[DISCUSS] Release clean-up (delete ALL the branches!)
http://markmail.org/message/rrz5yl6fig2vnfu5

Specifically, my proposal to drop support for the 1.2.x line for the
following reasons:

 * The 1.2.x line is over a year old
 * The 1.3.x line is upwards compatible

On 23 May 2013 10:30, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:

>
> But does that mean we only keep the latest version on the mirrors?
>

Yep.

But... All of the 1.2.x releases are available here:

http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/

What I am proposing we do is that when we drop support* for a release, we
remove it from our active dist dir. The files will always be available in
our archive dist dir, so the releases are still available, should you need
them.

What we want to avoid is people going to our active dist dir, seeing 1.2.2
and thinking "ah, this is a supported release. I'll download and install
it." Because at this point, we don't want people to do that any more. (We
want them do use 1.3.0.)

* When I say "drop support" I mean "we don't backport features or bugfixes
to this line any more".

My apologies if we've already agreed this & it is just sinking into my
> little bear brain today.
>

No worries. It seems this has caught a few people by surprise. We're
changing a system we've been using for half a decade, so that's to be
expected. :)


> TL;DR does it make sense to keep the n and n-1 active releases on the
> mirrors, or shall I just point people to
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/couchdb/binary/win/1.2.2/  etc? Maybe
> add a link on our website?
>

Why would we want to keep n-1 active release on the mirrors?

We shouldn't be encouraging anybody to download 1.2.2 any longer, so why
would we want to keep it around?

-- 
NS