New release

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

We need to start thinking about if/how/when we can do a new release. Nathan
and I started talking about this last August but for work issues neither of
us had the time then.

There is one issue resolved by Stefan Sperling (r1894734) which would be
good to have released. It is nominated for backport to 1.14.x and 1.10.x
but no review yet.

If we release now we should release at least 1.10.8 (we are three months
short of the "end of support date" and I think we should release one last
version with the current fixes) and 1.14.2.

In trunk there are also a bunch of improvements that themselves could
probably justify releasing 1.15. Then there are also a number of patches
flying around on the dev@, as well as one or two feature branches (the
non-pristine-wc being a prime example) that would be interesting to merge
before 1.15.

1: Can anyone volunteer to be RM?
2: Can we drum up some support for approving the candidate changes - at
least for 1.14.2 but, depending on the time line also for 1.10.8.
3: What about 1.15? And that probably bring up the larger question about
future release policy in general - we are NOT following the twice-per-year
policy at the moment.

Kind regards,
Daniel Sahlberg

Re: New release

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den tors 13 jan. 2022 kl 11:36 skrev Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:12 PM Daniel Sahlberg
> <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Den tis 11 jan. 2022 15:34Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> skrev:
> >>
> >> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >> > Thanks for starting to get this ball rolling, Daniel.
> >>
> >> Seconded.
> >>
> >> >> I have been pondering the question of which release(s) and in what
> >> >> order. I think 1.14.2 and 1.10.8 first, then 1.15.x later.
> >>
> >> Sounds good.
> >>
> >> As mentioned in another thread just now, I'm now able to work on issue
> #525 (pristines-on-demand) so we might consider if it's going to fit into
> the 1.15.0 time scale. I'm just starting today so if we could consider this
> in a few days once we've got some summary/plan/idea of how it might
> progress that would be good.
> >
> > I see several votes for releasing 1.15 "later". Nathan (I think) at one
> point suggested that 1.15 might be "the performance release" with the
> "streaming checkouts" from last summer so I think it makes sense to also
> bring this to completion. So: Later = +1 for me.
> >
> >>
> >> As for release management, I can volunteer at least a little support to
> a release manager, based on what I learnt and can remember from doing it a
> few times in the last few years.
> >
> >
> > Agree it is good if more hands know the skills. For me January and
> February are quite busy and I hope we can find someone to do 1.10.8 and
> 1.14.2 during that timeframe. I might be able to free some time for a 1.15
> release in March/April.
>
> In principle I could volunteer for RM, but there are at least 3 things
> holding me back:
>
> 1. Lack of time, but I guess that goes for a lot of us around here.
>
> 2. I'm on Windows, and AFAIU our current release process requires *nix
> (at least our docs refer to a lot of unix-specific build tools that
> are needed [1]). I could in theory do all those things on another
> machine, for instance our own svn-qavm (though I guess I'd need enough
> permissions on such a machine to install tools etc), or set up a
> temporary (virtual?) machine on my own, but I'm not sure I want to go
> through all the hassle (given my previous point). And given the
> previous point, I certainly don't have the time to investigate and
> update our release process to make it work on Windows (though that
> would definitely be useful).
>

Full disclosure: I'm on Windows too. If and when I'm RMing, I will probably
do all this work in a WSL-based virtual machine running on top Win11. I
don't suppose that will be an issue (since WSL is basically a wrapper
around Hyper-V, even running a proper Linux kernel) but I thought I should
mention.

3. I'm on Windows, and am usually the only one who provides a binding
> release-vote for the Windows platform, and traditionally we don't
> count the RM's own vote among the three required (and at least one per
> major platform [2]). I know that's not really required (the RM's vote
> is just as valid as any other from a PMC member), but we seem to have
> been able to do it this way until now (I think).
>

I've got a long outstanding promise to Alexandr to check a patch for the
build script on Windows, and I will renew my effort to get a working build
environment to be able to help signing on Windows.


> I suppose number 3 is not a very big issue, so let's say I have 2.5
> reasons :-).
> Number 2 (unix required) is the big one.
>
> [1]
> https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#before-release
> [2]
> https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#releasing-votes
>
>
Kind regards,
Daniel

Re: New release

[Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:12 PM Daniel Sahlberg
<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den tis 11 jan. 2022 15:34Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> skrev:
>>
>> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> > Thanks for starting to get this ball rolling, Daniel.
>>
>> Seconded.
>>
>> >> I have been pondering the question of which release(s) and in what
>> >> order. I think 1.14.2 and 1.10.8 first, then 1.15.x later.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> As mentioned in another thread just now, I'm now able to work on issue #525 (pristines-on-demand) so we might consider if it's going to fit into the 1.15.0 time scale. I'm just starting today so if we could consider this in a few days once we've got some summary/plan/idea of how it might progress that would be good.
>
> I see several votes for releasing 1.15 "later". Nathan (I think) at one point suggested that 1.15 might be "the performance release" with the "streaming checkouts" from last summer so I think it makes sense to also bring this to completion. So: Later = +1 for me.
>
>>
>> As for release management, I can volunteer at least a little support to a release manager, based on what I learnt and can remember from doing it a few times in the last few years.
>
>
> Agree it is good if more hands know the skills. For me January and February are quite busy and I hope we can find someone to do 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 during that timeframe. I might be able to free some time for a 1.15 release in March/April.

In principle I could volunteer for RM, but there are at least 3 things
holding me back:

1. Lack of time, but I guess that goes for a lot of us around here.

2. I'm on Windows, and AFAIU our current release process requires *nix
(at least our docs refer to a lot of unix-specific build tools that
are needed [1]). I could in theory do all those things on another
machine, for instance our own svn-qavm (though I guess I'd need enough
permissions on such a machine to install tools etc), or set up a
temporary (virtual?) machine on my own, but I'm not sure I want to go
through all the hassle (given my previous point). And given the
previous point, I certainly don't have the time to investigate and
update our release process to make it work on Windows (though that
would definitely be useful).

3. I'm on Windows, and am usually the only one who provides a binding
release-vote for the Windows platform, and traditionally we don't
count the RM's own vote among the three required (and at least one per
major platform [2]). I know that's not really required (the RM's vote
is just as valid as any other from a PMC member), but we seem to have
been able to do it this way until now (I think).

I suppose number 3 is not a very big issue, so let's say I have 2.5 reasons :-).
Number 2 (unix required) is the big one.

[1] https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#before-release
[2] https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#releasing-votes

-- 
Johan

Re: New release

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den tis 11 jan. 2022 15:34Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> skrev:

> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > Thanks for starting to get this ball rolling, Daniel.
>
> Seconded.
>
> >> I have been pondering the question of which release(s) and in what
> >> order. I think 1.14.2 and 1.10.8 first, then 1.15.x later.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> As mentioned in another thread just now, I'm now able to work on issue
> #525 (pristines-on-demand) so we might consider if it's going to fit into
> the 1.15.0 time scale. I'm just starting today so if we could consider this
> in a few days once we've got some summary/plan/idea of how it might
> progress that would be good.
>

I see several votes for releasing 1.15 "later". Nathan (I think) at one
point suggested that 1.15 might be "the performance release" with the
"streaming checkouts" from last summer so I think it makes sense to also
bring this to completion. So: Later = +1 for me.



> As for release management, I can volunteer at least a little support to a
> release manager, based on what I learnt and can remember from doing it a
> few times in the last few years.
>

Agree it is good if more hands know the skills. For me January and February
are quite busy and I hope we can find someone to do 1.10.8 and 1.14.2
during that timeframe. I might be able to free some time for a 1.15 release
in March/April.

/Daniel

Re: New release

[Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>]

Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Thanks for starting to get this ball rolling, Daniel.

Seconded.

>> I have been pondering the question of which release(s) and in what
>> order. I think 1.14.2 and 1.10.8 first, then 1.15.x later.

Sounds good.

As mentioned in another thread just now, I'm now able to work on issue #525 (pristines-on-demand) so we might consider if it's going to fit into the 1.15.0 time scale. I'm just starting today so if we could consider this in a few days once we've got some summary/plan/idea of how it might progress that would be good.

As for release management, I can volunteer at least a little support to a release manager, based on what I learnt and can remember from doing it a few times in the last few years.

-- 
- Julian

Re: New release

[Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for starting to get this ball rolling, Daniel.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:41 AM Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> I have been pondering the question of which release(s) and in what
> order. I think 1.14.2 and 1.10.8 first, then 1.15.x later.

+1

> Regarding drumming up support for the backports: I will make an effort
> to review items and look for other good candidates that aren't
> nominated yet.

I'll try to take some closer looks too.

-- 
Johan

Re: New release

[Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:39 PM Daniel Sahlberg
<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We need to start thinking about if/how/when we can do a new release. Nathan and I started talking about this last August but for work issues neither of us had the time then.
>
> There is one issue resolved by Stefan Sperling (r1894734) which would be good to have released. It is nominated for backport to 1.14.x and 1.10.x but no review yet.
>
> If we release now we should release at least 1.10.8 (we are three months short of the "end of support date" and I think we should release one last version with the current fixes) and 1.14.2.
>
> In trunk there are also a bunch of improvements that themselves could probably justify releasing 1.15. Then there are also a number of patches flying around on the dev@, as well as one or two feature branches (the non-pristine-wc being a prime example) that would be interesting to merge before 1.15.
>
> 1: Can anyone volunteer to be RM?
> 2: Can we drum up some support for approving the candidate changes - at least for 1.14.2 but, depending on the time line also for 1.10.8.
> 3: What about 1.15? And that probably bring up the larger question about future release policy in general - we are NOT following the twice-per-year policy at the moment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Daniel Sahlberg
>

Thanks for bringing this up.

For the moment, let's wait on the question of who can RM. I know that
without paid staff, this is a mental block to discussing releases, so
let's ignore it. Let's decide *what* we want first. (A clear plan may
make it possible to raise funds, etc.)

I have been pondering the question of which release(s) and in what
order. I think 1.14.2 and 1.10.8 first, then 1.15.x later.

Rationale: various, some of which are:
* unwieldy to release all three simultaneously
* better for the community to have 1.10.8 rather than not have it
* being patch releases, lower barrier to release as compared to 1.15

Because of this difference, I think it is better for the community not
to mix, say, 1.14.2 and 1.15.0, in one simultaneous effort.

Also, I think 1.15 is a more interesting release if it includes items
you mentioned and is released separately so its announcement is not
diluted by the other releases.

Of course, if there are good reasons to do things differently, I'm
certainly open to that. For example, previously discussed TortoiseSVN
features that were waiting for a Subversion release; for that purpose,
is there a difference between 1.14.2 and 1.15.0? Is one "better" than
the other? That could be a factor to consider.

Regarding drumming up support for the backports: I will make an effort
to review items and look for other good candidates that aren't
nominated yet.

Cheers,
Nathan