hadoop-mapreduce-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2016 01:01:59 GMT
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>

> Hi Konst, thanks for commenting,
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.hadoop@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> 1. I probably missed something but I didn't get it how "alpha"s made
>> their way into release numbers again. This was discussed on several
>> occasions and I thought the common perception was to use just three level
>> numbers for release versioning and avoid branding them.
>> It is particularly confusing to have 3.0.0-alpha1 and 3.0.0-alpha2. What
>> is alphaX - fourth level? I think releasing 3.0.0 and setting trunk to
>> 3.1.0 would be perfectly in line with our current release practices.
> We discussed release numbering a while ago when discussing the release
> plan for 3.0.0, and agreed on this scheme. "-alphaX" is essentially a
> fourth level as you say, but the intent is to only use it (and "-betaX") in
> the leadup to 3.0.0.
> The goal here is clarity for end users, since most other enterprise
> software uses a a.0.0 version to denote the GA of a new major version. Same
> for a.b.0 for a new minor version, though we haven't talked about that yet.
> The alphaX and betaX scheme also shares similarity to release versioning of
> other enterprise software.

As you remember we did this (alpha, beta) for Hadoop-2 and I don't think it
went well with user perception.
Say release 2.0.5-alpha turned out to be quite good even though still
branded "alpha", while 2.2 was not and not branded.
We should move a release to stable, when people ran it and agree it is GA
worthy. Otherwise you never know.

>> 2. I do not see any confusions with releasing 2.8.0 after 3.0.0.
>> The release number is not intended to reflect historical release
>> sequence, but rather the point in the source tree, which it was branched
>> off. So one can release 2.8, 2.9, etc. after or before 3.0.
> As described earlier in this thread, the issue here is setting the fix
> versions such that the changelog is a useful diff from a previous version,
> and also clear about what changes are present in each branch. If we do not
> order a specific 2.x before 3.0, then we don't know what 2.x to diff from.

So the problem is in determining the latest commit, which was not present
in the last release, when the last release bears higher number than the one
being released.
Interesting problem. Don't have a strong opinion on that. I guess it's OK
to have overlapping in changelogs.
As long as we keep following the rule that commits should be made to trunk
first and them propagated to lower branches until the target branch is

>> 3. I agree that current 3.0.0 branch can be dropped and re-cut. We may
>> think of another rule that if a release branch is not released in 3 month
>> it should be abandoned. Which is applicable to branch 2.8.0 and it is too
>> much work syncing it with branch-2.
>> Time-based rules are tough here. I'd prefer we continue to leave this up
> to release managers. If you think we should recut branch-2.8, recommend
> pinging Vinod and discussing on a new thread.

Not recut, but abandon 2.8.0. And Vinod (or anybody who volunteers to RM)
can recut  from the desired point.
People were committing to branch-2 and branch-2.8 for months. And they are
out of sync anyways. So what's the point of the extra commit.
Probably still a different thread.


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