You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ode.apache.org by Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> on 2009/02/21 00:48:15 UTC
RCs Re: Release(s)
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final release.
>> And it may have passed through the release process and voted on. Or not. I
>> didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
>>
>> So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process and
>> using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
>>
>
> Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific way
> to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch
> without re-voting) not with RCs in general.
>
So I don't understand what you mean when you say "RCs aren't fully kosher".
If there's nothing inherently non-kosher about RCs, and we're not
specifically discussing a particular non-kosher process, why not consider
doing RCs?
Assaf
>
> Matthieu
>
>
>>
>> Assaf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthie
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Assaf
>>>
>>> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>>>>
>>>> Matthieu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Milinda
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran < <ci...@gmail.com>
>>>> ciaranj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin < <ar...@intalio.com>
>>>> arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <<b...@intalio.com>
>>>> boisvert@intalio.com>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3.
>>>> It
>>>> > > should
>>>> > > > > have been a RC1.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
>>>> > qualifiers
>>>> > > > if
>>>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released"
>>>> but
>>>> > > > > there's
>>>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking
>>>> it's
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > official 1.3 release?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download
>>>> 1.3.1 is
>>>> > > > "What
>>>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > 1.3.1
>>>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing
>>>> with
>>>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > 1.3
>>>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Assaf
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > alex
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>> > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>>> > <bo...@intalio.com>boisvert@intalio.com
>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>>> > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going
>>>> to
>>>> > be
>>>> > > a
>>>> > > > > new
>>>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion.
>>>> Hence
>>>> > > > > 1.3.1.
>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
>>>> > > released
>>>> > > > so
>>>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a
>>>> first
>>>> > > chance
>>>> > > > of
>>>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
>>>> > running?"
>>>> > > > and
>>>> > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
>>>> cheap.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this
>>>> ML
>>>> > about
>>>> > > > 1.2
>>>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back
>>>> then
>>>> > > was
>>>> > > > > that
>>>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Matthieu
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > >> alex
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although
>>>> today our
>>>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
>>>> work,
>>>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
>>>> > > - Cj.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > <http://mpathirage.com>http://mpathirage.com
>>>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
>>>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services
>>>> With Axis2/C"
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: RCs Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final release.
>>>>> And it may have passed through the release process and voted on. Or not. I
>>>>> didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process
>>>>> and using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific
>>>> way to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch
>>>> without re-voting) not with RCs in general.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So I don't understand what you mean when you say "RCs aren't fully
>>> kosher". If there's nothing inherently non-kosher about RCs, and we're not
>>> specifically discussing a particular non-kosher process, why not consider
>>> doing RCs?
>>>
>>
>> I was referring back to the thread I linked to earlier ([1]) and the
>> related discussions that happened in legal discuss (also linked in that
>> thread). So when I was talking about RCs it was in that context (again,
>> voted RCs released as final from the same tag/branch without re-voting).
>>
>> I don't have anything against RCs as an industry practice. We (as an
>> Apache project) just need to handle them carefully because of the release
>> process. With that process in mind, the possibilities I see are:
>>
>> - Vote on RCs and final releases. Longer, heavier process (2x72h).
>> - Only vote for final releases. The RCs are therefore unofficial and
>> not meant for wide consumption.
>> - We could also choose to not have releases tagged as RCs and skip
>> numbers as a result. If a release is good, we vote on it, otherwise we cut
>> the next.
>>
>> What I like about the last option for ODE is that it's simple. But we can
>> probably make the second one work too if jumping numbers is A Big Deal.
>>
>
> It's simple until something goes wrong and then people start complaining
> about the quality of the releases. The thing is, people don't appreciate
> "release often" as much as they do "release well tested code". If you keep
> jumping versions when things break, people start treating you as a source of
> broken releases. So RC becomes this period of giving the code one last
> chance to prove it's well tested.
>
> How involved the RC process should be depends on the likelihood and
> consequences of things going group, coupled with the time it takes to find
> them:
>
> - Little consequence, easy to find. The code you're voting to release is
> the only candidate you need, and 72 hours enough to judge its quality.
> - Serious consequence, easy to find. 72 hours not enough, you need an RC
> that is distinct from the final release, and available for longer period.
> - Serious consequences, hard to find. Get more people involved by releasing
> an RC (vote and all) and giving people time to test it out (could take
> weeks).
>
> The last process is the heaviest, but it also guarantees more people
> looking at the code before cutting the final release. How likely I am to
> look at an RC is correlated to how long the RC window is, and how easy it is
> to obtain the RC, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the general rule for
> other people.
>
> Judging these processes in isolation is meaningless, the question is, which
> one is right for Ode?
>
We have 2 branches with different levels of maturity. For 1.X, which is
stable (sort of), I was gearing toward the first option, which is why I went
directly for a 1.3. For the trunk, we're clearly on the second option
(releasing betas at this point).
Matthieu
>
> Assaf
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p
>>
>>
>>> Assaf
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthieu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assaf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assaf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>>>> > Milinda
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran < <ci...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ciaranj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <<a...@intalio.com>
>>>>>>> arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <<b...@intalio.com>
>>>>>>> boisvert@intalio.com>
>>>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released
>>>>>>> 1.3. It
>>>>>>> > > should
>>>>>>> > > > > have been a RC1.
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
>>>>>>> > qualifiers
>>>>>>> > > > if
>>>>>>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been
>>>>>>> "released" but
>>>>>>> > > > > there's
>>>>>>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using,
>>>>>>> thinking it's
>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>> > > > official 1.3 release?
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download
>>>>>>> 1.3.1 is
>>>>>>> > > > "What
>>>>>>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > 1.3.1
>>>>>>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove
>>>>>>> confusing with
>>>>>>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > 1.3
>>>>>>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > Assaf
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > alex
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>>>>> > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>>>>>> > <bo...@intalio.com>boisvert@intalio.com
>>>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>>>>> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's
>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>> > be
>>>>>>> > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > new
>>>>>>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some
>>>>>>> confusion. Hence
>>>>>>> > > > > 1.3.1.
>>>>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not
>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>> > > released
>>>>>>> > > > so
>>>>>>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
>>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> > > chance
>>>>>>> > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
>>>>>>> > running?"
>>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers
>>>>>>> are cheap.
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on
>>>>>>> this ML
>>>>>>> > about
>>>>>>> > > > 1.2
>>>>>>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus
>>>>>>> back then
>>>>>>> > > was
>>>>>>> > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > Matthieu
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >> alex
>>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although
>>>>>>> today our
>>>>>>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used
>>>>>>> to work,
>>>>>>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
>>>>>>> > > - Cj.
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > <http://mpathirage.com>http://mpathirage.com
>>>>>>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service
>>>>>>> Developers"
>>>>>>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services
>>>>>>> With Axis2/C"
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: RCs Re: Release(s)
Posted by Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final release.
>>>> And it may have passed through the release process and voted on. Or not. I
>>>> didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
>>>>
>>>> So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process and
>>>> using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific
>>> way to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch
>>> without re-voting) not with RCs in general.
>>>
>>
>> So I don't understand what you mean when you say "RCs aren't fully
>> kosher". If there's nothing inherently non-kosher about RCs, and we're not
>> specifically discussing a particular non-kosher process, why not consider
>> doing RCs?
>>
>
> I was referring back to the thread I linked to earlier ([1]) and the
> related discussions that happened in legal discuss (also linked in that
> thread). So when I was talking about RCs it was in that context (again,
> voted RCs released as final from the same tag/branch without re-voting).
>
> I don't have anything against RCs as an industry practice. We (as an Apache
> project) just need to handle them carefully because of the release process.
> With that process in mind, the possibilities I see are:
>
> - Vote on RCs and final releases. Longer, heavier process (2x72h).
> - Only vote for final releases. The RCs are therefore unofficial and
> not meant for wide consumption.
> - We could also choose to not have releases tagged as RCs and skip
> numbers as a result. If a release is good, we vote on it, otherwise we cut
> the next.
>
> What I like about the last option for ODE is that it's simple. But we can
> probably make the second one work too if jumping numbers is A Big Deal.
>
It's simple until something goes wrong and then people start complaining
about the quality of the releases. The thing is, people don't appreciate
"release often" as much as they do "release well tested code". If you keep
jumping versions when things break, people start treating you as a source of
broken releases. So RC becomes this period of giving the code one last
chance to prove it's well tested.
How involved the RC process should be depends on the likelihood and
consequences of things going group, coupled with the time it takes to find
them:
- Little consequence, easy to find. The code you're voting to release is the
only candidate you need, and 72 hours enough to judge its quality.
- Serious consequence, easy to find. 72 hours not enough, you need an RC
that is distinct from the final release, and available for longer period.
- Serious consequences, hard to find. Get more people involved by releasing
an RC (vote and all) and giving people time to test it out (could take
weeks).
The last process is the heaviest, but it also guarantees more people looking
at the code before cutting the final release. How likely I am to look at an
RC is correlated to how long the RC window is, and how easy it is to obtain
the RC, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the general rule for other
people.
Judging these processes in isolation is meaningless, the question is, which
one is right for Ode?
Assaf
>
>
> Matthieu
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p
>
>
>> Assaf
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assaf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assaf
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>>> > Milinda
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran < <ci...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> ciaranj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <<a...@intalio.com>
>>>>>> arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <<b...@intalio.com>
>>>>>> boisvert@intalio.com>
>>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> > > should
>>>>>> > > > > have been a RC1.
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
>>>>>> > qualifiers
>>>>>> > > > if
>>>>>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been
>>>>>> "released" but
>>>>>> > > > > there's
>>>>>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > > > official 1.3 release?
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download
>>>>>> 1.3.1 is
>>>>>> > > > "What
>>>>>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > 1.3.1
>>>>>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove
>>>>>> confusing with
>>>>>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > 1.3
>>>>>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > Assaf
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > alex
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>>>> > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>>>>> > <bo...@intalio.com>boisvert@intalio.com
>>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>>>> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>>>>> > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's
>>>>>> going to
>>>>>> > be
>>>>>> > > a
>>>>>> > > > > new
>>>>>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some
>>>>>> confusion. Hence
>>>>>> > > > > 1.3.1.
>>>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not
>>>>>> officially
>>>>>> > > released
>>>>>> > > > so
>>>>>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> > > chance
>>>>>> > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
>>>>>> > running?"
>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this
>>>>>> ML
>>>>>> > about
>>>>>> > > > 1.2
>>>>>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus
>>>>>> back then
>>>>>> > > was
>>>>>> > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > Matthieu
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >> alex
>>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although
>>>>>> today our
>>>>>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
>>>>>> work,
>>>>>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
>>>>>> > > - Cj.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > <http://mpathirage.com>http://mpathirage.com
>>>>>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service
>>>>>> Developers"
>>>>>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services
>>>>>> With Axis2/C"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: RCs Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final release.
>>> And it may have passed through the release process and voted on. Or not. I
>>> didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
>>>
>>> So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process and
>>> using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific way
>> to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch
>> without re-voting) not with RCs in general.
>>
>
> So I don't understand what you mean when you say "RCs aren't fully
> kosher". If there's nothing inherently non-kosher about RCs, and we're not
> specifically discussing a particular non-kosher process, why not consider
> doing RCs?
>
I was referring back to the thread I linked to earlier ([1]) and the related
discussions that happened in legal discuss (also linked in that thread). So
when I was talking about RCs it was in that context (again, voted RCs
released as final from the same tag/branch without re-voting).
I don't have anything against RCs as an industry practice. We (as an Apache
project) just need to handle them carefully because of the release process.
With that process in mind, the possibilities I see are:
- Vote on RCs and final releases. Longer, heavier process (2x72h).
- Only vote for final releases. The RCs are therefore unofficial and not
meant for wide consumption.
- We could also choose to not have releases tagged as RCs and skip
numbers as a result. If a release is good, we vote on it, otherwise we cut
the next.
What I like about the last option for ODE is that it's simple. But we can
probably make the second one work too if jumping numbers is A Big Deal.
Matthieu
[1] http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p
> Assaf
>
>
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Assaf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthie
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assaf
>>>>
>>>> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>> > Milinda
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran < <ci...@gmail.com>
>>>>> ciaranj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin < <ar...@intalio.com>
>>>>> arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <<b...@intalio.com>
>>>>> boisvert@intalio.com>
>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3.
>>>>> It
>>>>> > > should
>>>>> > > > > have been a RC1.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
>>>>> > qualifiers
>>>>> > > > if
>>>>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been
>>>>> "released" but
>>>>> > > > > there's
>>>>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking
>>>>> it's
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > official 1.3 release?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download
>>>>> 1.3.1 is
>>>>> > > > "What
>>>>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > 1.3.1
>>>>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing
>>>>> with
>>>>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > 1.3
>>>>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Assaf
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > alex
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>>> > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>>>> > <bo...@intalio.com>boisvert@intalio.com
>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>>>>> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>>>> > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's
>>>>> going to
>>>>> > be
>>>>> > > a
>>>>> > > > > new
>>>>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion.
>>>>> Hence
>>>>> > > > > 1.3.1.
>>>>> > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
>>>>> > > released
>>>>> > > > so
>>>>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a
>>>>> first
>>>>> > > chance
>>>>> > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
>>>>> > running?"
>>>>> > > > and
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
>>>>> cheap.
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this
>>>>> ML
>>>>> > about
>>>>> > > > 1.2
>>>>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus
>>>>> back then
>>>>> > > was
>>>>> > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > Matthieu
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >> alex
>>>>> > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although
>>>>> today our
>>>>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
>>>>> work,
>>>>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
>>>>> > > - Cj.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > <http://mpathirage.com>http://mpathirage.com
>>>>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
>>>>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services
>>>>> With Axis2/C"
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>