You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2012/06/08 21:29:08 UTC
[SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our development
releases named e.g.
trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in the
communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really
want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though they
can sometimes be a bit risky.
-- Leif
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 6/10/12 2:17 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> Ok, guess I'm talking about "tagged" not "released". I'm not familiar with
> the apache release process. As I see it 3.1.4 was tagged 5 times as
> release candidates, and the final one was released. In other projects I
> think we'd see 3.1.4-rc1, rc2, rc3, rc4 and rc5 which eventually would be
> renamed to non-rc when it was officially released.
Agreed. With Nick's proposal, the tag can stay as it was (obviously), even
though it was never released.
Cheers,
-- Leif
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net>.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:16:32PM -0600, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> For "patch" releases on a stable branch this problem could occur,
> but in that case, I'd suggest we simply skip failed releases. We've
> done this in the past, for example, 3.0.3 was never released if I
> recall (because it failed). So we went from 3.0.2 to 3.0.4.
Right, this is exactly what I'm asking for (or alterntively -rc* tags).
> >>If we are concerned about the reuse of the minor number during dev
> >>release recycles, I'd suggest we do what Nick proposed, and simply
> >>skip version numbers.
> >It's not skipping, it's bumping. The first 3.1.4 would still have been
> >released, but it would be a brown paper bag release..
>
> No can do. It failed the vote (I canceled it), so that particular
> incarnation of 3.1.4 was not releaseable.
Ok, guess I'm talking about "tagged" not "released". I'm not
familiar with the apache release process. As I see it 3.1.4 was tagged
5 times as release candidates, and the final one was released. In
other projects I think we'd see 3.1.4-rc1, rc2, rc3, rc4 and rc5 which
eventually would be renamed to non-rc when it was officially released.
>
> The more I read this though, and thinking about it, I'm pretty
> convinced that Nick's suggestion of bumping version numbers (which
> we've done at least once before) is the way to go.
Sounds good.
-jf
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 6/10/12 3:31 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:44:23AM -0600, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>> On a related note.. it would be nice if the release candidates could be
>>> tagged as release candidates (trafficserver-3.x.y-rc1), instead of having
>>> several versions of trafficserver-3.x.y.tar.gz floating around.
>> So that would then also be the final release name name (e.g.
>> trafficsever-3.3.0-rc1-dev)? I find that somewhat confusing,
> I agree, that looks ugly. I was mainly thinking about stable releaes.
We generally don't have that problem for stable. There are no "release
candidates" per se, i.e. 3.1.4 is what will become 3.2. So in a sense, the
3.1.4 release is the release candidate for v3.2.
For "patch" releases on a stable branch this problem could occur, but in
that case, I'd suggest we simply skip failed releases. We've done this in
the past, for example, 3.0.3 was never released if I recall (because it
failed). So we went from 3.0.2 to 3.0.4.
>
>> If we are concerned about the reuse of the minor number during dev
>> release recycles, I'd suggest we do what Nick proposed, and simply
>> skip version numbers.
> It's not skipping, it's bumping. The first 3.1.4 would still have been
> released, but it would be a brown paper bag release..
No can do. It failed the vote (I canceled it), so that particular
incarnation of 3.1.4 was not releaseable. This is normal procedure at
Apache, we don't release artifacts that are not accepted in the vote. This
is why I did a respin later for v3.1.4, since it now actually worked. In
retrospect, I should have respun (is that a word?) as 3.1.5 seeing that this
caused confusion.
>
> 52bb0e0cfd595f48844e2463e3a531f19cf27ff9 would be 3.1.4
> 886465e5cbaaf41e6486da265bc0cc6ddbe23933 would be 3.1.5
>
>> This has another problem though, which is that all Jira tickets have
>> to be renumbered on a respin (at least I would insist that they
>> should).
> It's not a respin. Lots of tickets were closed on 3.1.4, and some more
> on 3.1.5. If some user complains about problems with 3.1.4 it would be
Not true. :) There were no bugs for 3.1.5. In fact, there is no 3.1.5, and
there never will be (I hope).
If I understand the proposals, 3.1.4 would have become released as 3.1.5,
skipping 3.1.4 entirely, and we would therefore have had to relabel all
3.1.4 bugs to be 3.1.5. This is not a huge problem, Jira lets you do that
pretty easily, but it also means bumping other bugs (again, not a huge
amount of work, and hopefully not something that happens frequently). As far
as I can recall, we've only run into this release problem a couple of times
in close to 20 releases.
The more I read this though, and thinking about it, I'm pretty convinced
that Nick's suggestion of bumping version numbers (which we've done at least
once before) is the way to go.
Cheers,
-- Leif
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net>.
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:44:23AM -0600, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> >
> > On a related note.. it would be nice if the release candidates could be
> > tagged as release candidates (trafficserver-3.x.y-rc1), instead of having
> > several versions of trafficserver-3.x.y.tar.gz floating around.
>
> So that would then also be the final release name name (e.g.
> trafficsever-3.3.0-rc1-dev)? I find that somewhat confusing,
I agree, that looks ugly. I was mainly thinking about stable releaes.
> If we are concerned about the reuse of the minor number during dev
> release recycles, I'd suggest we do what Nick proposed, and simply
> skip version numbers.
It's not skipping, it's bumping. The first 3.1.4 would still have been
released, but it would be a brown paper bag release..
52bb0e0cfd595f48844e2463e3a531f19cf27ff9 would be 3.1.4
886465e5cbaaf41e6486da265bc0cc6ddbe23933 would be 3.1.5
> This has another problem though, which is that all Jira tickets have
> to be renumbered on a respin (at least I would insist that they
> should).
It's not a respin. Lots of tickets were closed on 3.1.4, and some more
on 3.1.5. If some user complains about problems with 3.1.4 it would be
possible to tell that this was fixed on v3.1.5, vs. the situatuin now
where there are two versions of 3.1.4 floating around, which are close
to impossible to tell apart (both look just as official, signed by the
same gpg-key).
But yes.. tickets targeted for the next release would have to be bumped.
-jf
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On Jun 9, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:29:08PM -0600, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our
>> development releases named e.g.
>>
>> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
>
> On a related note.. it would be nice if the release candidates could be
> tagged as release candidates (trafficserver-3.x.y-rc1), instead of having
> several versions of trafficserver-3.x.y.tar.gz floating around.
So that would then also be the final release name name (e.g. trafficsever-3.3.0-rc1-dev)? I find that somewhat confusing, release candidates are typically associated with pre stable releases (which is what we use the dev releases for). Renaming an artifact after the vote completes is a bit of PITA, unless we only rename the tarball and not the source tree it creates.
If we are concerned about the reuse of the minor number during dev release recycles, I'd suggest we do what Nick proposed, and simply skip version numbers. This has another problem though, which is that all Jira tickets have to be renumbered on a respin (at least I would insist that they should). But this would be my preference to address this concern. I'm +0 on this, I just don't find it to be a significant problem myself. :)
Cheers,
-- Leif
>
>
> -jf
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net>.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:29:08PM -0600, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our
> development releases named e.g.
>
> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
On a related note.. it would be nice if the release candidates could be
tagged as release candidates (trafficserver-3.x.y-rc1), instead of having
several versions of trafficserver-3.x.y.tar.gz floating around.
-jf
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Jan-Frode Myklebust <ja...@tanso.net>.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:29:08PM -0600, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our
> development releases named e.g.
>
> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
On a related note.. it would be nice if the release candidates could be
tagged as release candidates (trafficserver-3.x.y-rc1), instead of having
several versions of trafficserver-3.x.y.tar.gz floating around.
-jf
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 6/8/12 3:01 PM, James Peach wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our development releases named e.g.
>>
>> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
>>
>>
>> Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in the communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though they can sometimes be a bit risky.
> +1, let's just make sure there is a wiki page or something that describes exactly what the terms mean
>
Tag, you're it!
-- leif
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 6/8/12 3:01 PM, James Peach wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our development releases named e.g.
>>
>> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
>>
>>
>> Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in the communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though they can sometimes be a bit risky.
> +1, let's just make sure there is a wiki page or something that describes exactly what the terms mean
>
Tag, you're it!
-- leif
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by James Peach <ja...@me.com>.
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our development releases named e.g.
>
> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
>
>
> Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in the communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though they can sometimes be a bit risky.
+1, let's just make sure there is a wiki page or something that describes exactly what the terms mean
J
R: RE: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Luca Rea <lu...@contactlab.com>.
I suggest...
Stable (no risks) for production environments
Dev (mods with low-medium impact) for testing under development
Unstable (mods with medium-high impact) for experimental testing
Adding (not replacing) the name can be more useful to do segmentation and clarify.
Luca Rea
Reparto IT
System engineer
__________________________________
ContactLab s.r.l.
Via Natale Battaglia 12
20127 Milano
Tel. +39.02.283118.1
Fax. +39.02.70030269
http://www.contactlab.com
__________________________________
E-mail & E-marketing Evolution
RE: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by "Vaillancourt, Tim" <TV...@ea.com>.
Good idea, I'm on board. I know I'd have a tough time getting approval on a version with "unstable" in the name :).
"dev" says everything that needs to be said while causing less uneasiness.
Cheers!
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Luca Rea [mailto:luca.rea@contactlab.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:43 PM
To: 'users@trafficserver.apache.org'
Subject: R: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
I think many users look at dev release just like to a fixed and working fine release under development for adding more great features to be tested, not an unstable one with declared bugs.
Luca Rea
Reparto IT
System engineer
__________________________________
ContactLab s.r.l.
Via Natale Battaglia 12
20127 Milano
Tel. +39.02.283118.1
Fax. +39.02.70030269
http://www.contactlab.com
__________________________________
E-mail & E-marketing Evolution
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zwoop@apache.org]
Inviato: Friday, June 08, 2012 09:29 PM
A: dev@trafficserver.apache.org <de...@trafficserver.apache.org>; 'users@trafficserver.apache.org' <us...@trafficserver.apache.org>
Oggetto: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our development releases named e.g.
trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in the communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though they can sometimes be a bit risky.
-- Leif
Re: R: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 6/8/12 1:43 PM, Luca Rea wrote:
> I think many users look at dev release just like to a fixed and working fine release under development for adding more great features to be tested, not an unstable one with declared bugs.
>
Right, and -unstable never meant that we shipped intentionally broken
builds. The -unstable label actually came from the fact that APIs and
features might be changing during the development release cycle.
-- Leif
R: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Luca Rea <lu...@contactlab.com>.
I think many users look at dev release just like to a fixed and working fine release under development for adding more great features to be tested, not an unstable one with declared bugs.
Luca Rea
Reparto IT
System engineer
__________________________________
ContactLab s.r.l.
Via Natale Battaglia 12
20127 Milano
Tel. +39.02.283118.1
Fax. +39.02.70030269
http://www.contactlab.com
__________________________________
E-mail & E-marketing Evolution
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zwoop@apache.org]
Inviato: Friday, June 08, 2012 09:29 PM
A: dev@trafficserver.apache.org <de...@trafficserver.apache.org>; 'users@trafficserver.apache.org' <us...@trafficserver.apache.org>
Oggetto: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our development
releases named e.g.
trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in the
communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really
want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though they
can sometimes be a bit risky.
-- Leif
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
Catching up on mail, here's my belated:
+1
----- Original Message -----
> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our
> development
> releases named e.g.
>
> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
>
>
> Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in
> the
> communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really
> want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though
> they
> can sometimes be a bit risky.
>
> -- Leif
>
>
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: [SUGGESTIONS] s/-unstable/-dev/ for 3.3.x release cycle
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
Catching up on mail, here's my belated:
+1
----- Original Message -----
> I'd like to suggest that starting with v3.3.0, we make our
> development
> releases named e.g.
>
> trafficserver-3.3.0-dev
>
>
> Any objections? The reason is that "unstable" has bad connotation in
> the
> communities in general, and corporations in particular. And we really
> want people to have the guts to try our dev releases, even though
> they
> can sometimes be a bit risky.
>
> -- Leif
>
>
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE