Re: EOL branch-1 and all 1.x ?

[Bharath Vissapragada <bh...@apache.org>]

Agreed. +1 for EOL'ing.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:08 PM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:

> Thanks for the write-up Andrew. +1 on its EOL'ing.
> S
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:03 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
> > occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility
> > guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the
> range
> > of acceptable versions of third party dependencies is also restricted due
> > to Java 7 compatibility requirements. Most developers are writing code
> with
> > Java 8+ idioms these days. For that reason and because the branch-1 code
> > base is generally aged at this point, all but trivial (or lucky!)
> backports
> > require substantial changes in order to integrate adequately. Let me also
> > observe that branch-1 artifacts are not fully compatible with Java 11 or
> > later. (The shell is a good example of such issues: The version of
> > jruby-complete required by branch-1 is not compatible with Java 11 and
> > upgrading to the version used by branch-2 causes shell commands to error
> > out due to Ruby language changes.)
> >
> > We can a priori determine there is insufficient motivation for production
> > of release artifacts for the PMC to vote upon. Otherwise, someone would
> > have done it. We had 12 releases from branch-2 derived code in 2019, 13
> > releases from branch-2 derived code in 2020, and so far we have had 3
> > releases from branch-2 derived code in 2021. In contrast, we had 8
> releases
> > from branch-1 derived code in 2019, 0 releases from branch-1 in 2020, and
> > so far 0 releases from branch-1 in 2021.
> >
> > *  2021202020191.x0282.x31312*
> >
> > If there is someone interested in continuing branch-1, now is the time to
> > commit. However let me be clear that simply expressing an abstract desire
> > to see continued branch-1 releases will not be that useful. It will be
> > noted, but will not have much real world impact. Apache is a do-ocracy.
> In
> > the absence of intrinsic motivation of project participants, which is
> what
> > we seem to have here, you will need to do something: Fix the
> compatibility
> > issues, if any between the last release of 1.x and the current branch-1
> > head; fix any failing and flaky unit tests; produce release artifacts;
> and
> > submit those artifacts to the PMC for voting. Or, convince someone with
> > commit rights and/or PMC membership to undertake these actions on your
> > behalf.
> >
> > Otherwise, I respectfully submit for your consideration, it is time to
> > declare  branch-1 and all 1.x code lines EOL, simply acknowledging what
> has
> > effectively already happened.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > decrepit hands
> >    - A23, Crosstalk
> >
>

Re: EOL branch-1 and all 1.x ?

["张铎 (Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>]

+1 on EOL branch-1 and all 1.x.

Thanks Andrew for the write up.

Bharath Vissapragada <bh...@apache.org>于2021年4月1日 周四08:07写道：

> Agreed. +1 for EOL'ing.
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:08 PM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the write-up Andrew. +1 on its EOL'ing.
> > S
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:03 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
> > >
> > > There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
> > > occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility
> > > guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the
> > range
> > > of acceptable versions of third party dependencies is also restricted
> due
> > > to Java 7 compatibility requirements. Most developers are writing code
> > with
> > > Java 8+ idioms these days. For that reason and because the branch-1
> code
> > > base is generally aged at this point, all but trivial (or lucky!)
> > backports
> > > require substantial changes in order to integrate adequately. Let me
> also
> > > observe that branch-1 artifacts are not fully compatible with Java 11
> or
> > > later. (The shell is a good example of such issues: The version of
> > > jruby-complete required by branch-1 is not compatible with Java 11 and
> > > upgrading to the version used by branch-2 causes shell commands to
> error
> > > out due to Ruby language changes.)
> > >
> > > We can a priori determine there is insufficient motivation for
> production
> > > of release artifacts for the PMC to vote upon. Otherwise, someone would
> > > have done it. We had 12 releases from branch-2 derived code in 2019, 13
> > > releases from branch-2 derived code in 2020, and so far we have had 3
> > > releases from branch-2 derived code in 2021. In contrast, we had 8
> > releases
> > > from branch-1 derived code in 2019, 0 releases from branch-1 in 2020,
> and
> > > so far 0 releases from branch-1 in 2021.
> > >
> > > *  2021202020191.x0282.x31312*
> > >
> > > If there is someone interested in continuing branch-1, now is the time
> to
> > > commit. However let me be clear that simply expressing an abstract
> desire
> > > to see continued branch-1 releases will not be that useful. It will be
> > > noted, but will not have much real world impact. Apache is a do-ocracy.
> > In
> > > the absence of intrinsic motivation of project participants, which is
> > what
> > > we seem to have here, you will need to do something: Fix the
> > compatibility
> > > issues, if any between the last release of 1.x and the current branch-1
> > > head; fix any failing and flaky unit tests; produce release artifacts;
> > and
> > > submit those artifacts to the PMC for voting. Or, convince someone with
> > > commit rights and/or PMC membership to undertake these actions on your
> > > behalf.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, I respectfully submit for your consideration, it is time to
> > > declare  branch-1 and all 1.x code lines EOL, simply acknowledging what
> > has
> > > effectively already happened.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > > decrepit hands
> > >    - A23, Crosstalk
> > >
> >
>