hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tsuyoshi Ozawa <oz...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]
Date Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:13:30 GMT
> Andrew: I bet many would assume it's the release date, like how Ubuntu
releases are numbered.

Good point. Maybe I confuse you because of lack of explanation.

I assume that "branch-cut off timing" mean the timing of freezing branch
like when starting the release vote. It's because that the release can
be delayed after the release pass. Does it make sense to you?

> Even if we have the branch-cut date in the version string, devs still
need to be aware of other branches and backport appropriately.

Yes, you're right. The good point of including date is that we can declare
which version includes the latest changes. It helps users, not devs
basically, to decide which version users will use: e.g. if
2.8.1-20160801 is released after 2.9.0-20160701 and a user uses
2.7.3-20160701, she can update their cluster 2.8.1, which include bug fixes
against 2.7.3. Please let me know if I have some missing points.

Thanks,
- Tsuyoshi

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Thanks for replies Akira and Tsuyoshi, inline:
>
> Akira: Assuming 3.0.0-alpha1 will be released between 2.7.0 and 2.8.0, we
>> need to add 3.0.0-alphaX if 2.8.0 is in the fix versions of a jira and we
>> don't need to add 3.0.0-alphaX if 2.7.0 is in the fix versions of a jira.
>> Is it right?
>
>
> Yes, correct.
>
>
>> Tsuyoshi: My suggestion is adding the date when branch cut is done: like
>> 3.0.0-alpha1-20160724, 2.8.0-20160730 or something.
>>
>> Pros:-) It's totally ordered. If we have a policy such as backporting
>> to maintainance branches after the date, users can find that which version
>> is cutting edge. In the example of above, 2.8.0-20160730 can include bug
>> fixes which is not included in 3.0.0-alpha1-20160724.
>>
>> Cons:-( A bit redundant.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on the problem this scheme addresses? We always want
> our releases, when ordered chronologically, to incorporate all the known
> relevant bug fixes. Even if we have the branch-cut date in the version
> string, devs still need to be aware of other branches and backport
> appropriately.
>
> Given that branch cuts and releases might not happen in the same order
> (e.g. if 3.0.0-alpha1 precedes 2.8.0), I think this also would be confusing
> for users. I bet many would assume it's the release date, like how Ubuntu
> releases are numbered.
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message