I agree with both keeping 2.7.x going until a new LTS is declared and declaring LTS spost-release after some use. 2.12 might actually be a good candidate, with multiple RCs/validations it presumably is well tested. We can consider that after it gets some real world use.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:29 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > IIRC, there was some talk on making 2.12 the next LTS, but the > consensus is to decide on a LTS after having had some experience with > it, not at or before the release itself. > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:04 PM Alexey Romanenko > <aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for working on this, Kenn. > > > > Perhaps, I missed this but has it been already discussed/decided what > will be the next LTS release? > > > > On 26 Apr 2019, at 08:02, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Since it is all trivially reversible if there is some other feeling > about this thread, I have gone ahead and started the work: > > > > - I made release-2.7.1 branch point to the same commit as release-2.7.0 > so there is something to target PRs > > - I have opened the first PR, cherry-picking the set_version script and > using it to set the version on the branch to 2.7.1: > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8407 (found bug in the new script > right away :-) > > > > Here is the release with list of issues: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/BEAM/versions/12344458. So anyone > can grab a ticket and volunteer to open a backport PR to the release-2.7.1 > branch. > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about how long we should support the 2.7.x > line. I am curious about different perspectives on user / vendor needs. I > have two very basic thoughts: (1) we surely need to keep it going until > some time after we have another LTS designated, to make sure there is a > clear path for anyone only using LTS releases and (2) if we decide to end > support of 2.7.x but then someone volunteers to backport and release, of > course I would not expect anyone to block them, so it has no maximum > lifetime, but we just need consensus on a minimum. And of course that > consensus cannot force anyone to do the work, but is just a resolution of > the community. > > > > Kenn > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:29 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> > >> +1 it sounds good to me. > >> > >> Thanks ! > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 26/04/2019 02:42, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > Since the release of 2.7.0 we have identified some serious bugs: > >> > > >> > - There are 8 (non-dupe) issues* tagged with Fix Version 2.7.1 > >> > - 2 are rated "Blocker" (aka P0) but I think the others may be > underrated > >> > - If you know of a critical bug that is not on that list, please file > >> > an LTS backport ticket for it > >> > > >> > If a user is on an old version and wants to move to the LTS, there are > >> > some real blockers. I propose that we perform a 2.7.1 release > starting now. > >> > > >> > I volunteer to manage the release. What do you think? > >> > > >> > Kenn > >> > > >> > *Some are "resolved" but this is not accurate as the LTS 2.7.1 branch > is > >> > not created yet. I suggest filing a ticket to track just the LTS > >> > backport when you hit a bug that merits it. > >> > > > > > >
