Skip to content

Release proposal: 1.8.0 #1436

Closed
Closed
Release proposal: 1.8.0#1436
Labels
metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
Milestone
1.8.0

Description

@chrisdickinson
chrisdickinson
opened on Apr 16, 2015

As it stands, there are some commits on master that are not part of v1.x, and some commits in v1.x that are not part of a v1.x release. To remedy this, and get us onto the master branch in anticipation of a v2.0.0 release, I propose a v1.8.0 release, the final non-support-related release in the v1.x line.

the proposed plan

actions

(eugh, accidentally overwritten by changelog!)

outcomes
  • Master is the new development branch.
  • There is no v2.x branch. It will be cut once a v3.0.0 release is made to prevent having to constantly update it to match master.
  • All existing PRs will target the wrong branch. Or, more charitably, they'll target an older branch than they intended. I will make an effort to tag these PRs with a tag – targets-master might be best?
  • We should follow up with commits to update the documentation and build tooling, if need be.
  • Bug and security fixes should be the only PRs landed in the v1.x branch.
questions
  • Should we wait for any other commits to make it into v1.x before switching to master / preparing for the v2.x release?
  • @rvagg / @iojs/build – is there anything that needs to be done to the release tooling to account for the branch switch?

The proposed changelog:

  • [431673ebd1] - buffer: fast-case for empty string in byteLength (Jackson Tian) #1441
  • [91943a99d5] - build: use %PYTHON% instead of python (Rod Vagg) #1444
  • [c7769d417b] - build: Expose xz compression level (Johan Bergström) #1428
  • [a530b2baf1] - build: fix error message in configure (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [92dfb794f9] - build: enable ssl support on arm64 (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [7de0dcde83] - deps: make node-gyp work with io.js (cjihrig) #990
  • [4870213f9e] - deps: upgrade npm to 2.8.3 (Forrest L Norvell)
  • [49bb7ded2c] - deps: fix git case sensitivity issue in npm (Chris Dickinson) #1456
  • [4830b4bce8] - deps: add docs to upgrade openssl (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [11bec72c87] - deps: update asm files for openssl-1.0.2a (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [53924d8ebe] - deps: update asm Makefile for openssl-1.0.2a (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [418e839456] - deps: update openssl.gyp/gypi for openssl-1.0.2a (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [02f12ab666] - deps: update opensslconf.h for 1.0.2a (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [eb7a23595f] - deps: add x32 and arm64 support for opensslconf.h (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [033a663127] - deps: replace all headers in openssl (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [ae8831f240] - deps: backport openssl patch of alt cert chains 1 (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [71316c46d9] - deps: fix asm build error of openssl in x86_win32 (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [d293a4f096] - deps: fix openssl assembly error on ia32 win32 (Fedor Indutny) #1389
  • [e4872d7405] - deps: upgrade openssl to 1.0.2a (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [a1c9ef3142] - deps, build: add support older assembler (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [76f219c128] - doc: Document forced pushing with git (Johan Bergström) #1420
  • [12e51d56c1] - doc: add Addon API WG (Rod Vagg) #1226
  • [7956a13dad] - http: logically respect maxSockets (fengmk2) #1242
  • [5b844e140b] - module: fix style (Roman Reiss) #1453
  • [3ad82c335d] - (SEMVER-MINOR) module: handle NODE_PATH in require('.') (Roman Reiss) #1363
  • [cd60ff0328] - net: add fd into listen2 debug info (Jackson Tian) #1442
  • [10e31ba56c] - (SEMVER-MINOR) node: allow multiple arguments passed to nextTick (Trevor Norris) #1077
  • [116c54692a] - openssl: fix keypress requirement in apps on win32 (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [62f5f4cec9] - src: remove duplicate byteLength from Buffer (Jackson Tian) #1438
  • [51d0808c90] - stream: remove duplicated expression (Yazhong Liu) #1444
  • [deb9d23d7b] - test: fix error message check for openssl-1.0.2a (Shigeki Ohtsu) #1389
  • [ca8c9ec2c8] - win,node-gyp: optionally allow node.exe/iojs.exe to be renamed (Bert Belder) #1266

cc @iojs/tc @iojs/collaborators

Activity

  1. brendanashworth
    added
    metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
    on Apr 16, 2015

  2. jbergstroem commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @jbergstroem
    jbergstroem
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    I'm very keen on landing #1429 beforehand. At least, part of it that fixes building against shared libraries.

    One added action: switch default branch in jenkins job description.

  3. rvagg commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @rvagg
    rvagg
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    I like it

    re release tooling - I don't think there's anything I need to do, there are some defaults but they are just defaults and shouldn't impact builds or tests.

    re commit log, run changelog-maker --group to group them like we've been doing recently, it's easier to see the most impactful changes then.

    re version, even though it's only the process.nextTick() changes that are forcing this, the bump in openssl fits nicely under there because of the potential for changes in user experience (even though in theory it shouldn't be noticable).

    timing of this release is up to you but depending on the progress towards merging v8, we may see a 1.8.1 before we go 2.0.0 given the things that need to line up for that to be ready to go so perhaps we need a transitional git process that gives us the freedom to cut a 1.8.1 if 2.0.0 is taking longer than we expect? your call but keep that in mind.

  4. yosuke-furukawa commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @yosuke-furukawa
    yosuke-furukawa
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    I would like to land #1412 . before v2.0.

  5. rvagg commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @rvagg
    rvagg
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    published changelog-maker v1.3.2 to account for that deps, build: commit

  6. chrisdickinson commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    chrisdickinson
    on Apr 16, 2015
    ContributorAuthor

    thanks for the changelog-maker tip!

    re: timing and a potential 1.8.1: I was thinking about that a bit. I don't think the steps above would preclude us from making new releases on the v1.x line on the road up to v2.0.0 – at least, not for any technical reason. Patches comprising v1.8.1 would land in v1.x and be merged up to master. That said, I agree it'd be best to minimize the amount of time we're doing that for because past experience has shown that that can quickly get out of hand.

    A note about the next branch, vs. what will become v2.0.0 per the above – at present, they have different merge-bases with v1.x. next is branched from v1.6.2, while v2.0.0 will end up being on top of the commits on master + the merge commit of v1.x. Once we've gone through the steps above, I propose we additionally:

    1. delete the existing next branch,
    2. re-cut next from master,
    3. cherry pick commits 41c00a2, 336dc08, and bb97b70 onto new next,
    4. land the v2.0.0 PRs (as applicable) onto next as applicable,
    5. and finally force push next to GitHub

    That way when the nightly build kicks off we can treat that as the first release candidate for io.js v2.0.0.

    Should we "fix" next sooner rather than later so that we can get an RC out earlier? Or should we approach re-cutting next differently (or not at all)? It seems to me one of the branches (out of next, v1.x, and master) will need to be rebased/force pushed, and next is probably the one that will cause the least stress.

    The alternative is to drop the following commits from master and then fast-forward merging v1.x to master, but then next is still based off of v1.6.2 and we'll have dropped commits (albeit unused ones).

  7. rvagg commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @rvagg
    rvagg
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    I'm going to opt out of making suggestions on this one, if @bnoordhuis has time then he should provide input since he started the work on next. You have reminded me though that I'll need to change the nightly builds to stop checking the head of v1.x, that's one hard-wired area where branch names matter.

    I think at this stage my vote would be for continuing to publish nightlies off v1.x even after 1.8.0 and only switch to building them off master when we are close. In the meantime I can switch next-nightly to master if we get that next -> master merge done and start working on 2.0.0 in master, then our RC builds can come out of there and we either tell people to just use the next-nightly builds and consider them RC or we can properly label a build or two "RC" in some way.

  8. Fishrock123 commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Fishrock123
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Contributor
    1. Before we cut a working on-style commit, we merge v1.x into master using git checkout master; git merge -Xtheirs v1.x and issue a PR against master. I'll put up a WIP PR as an example of what that will look like so it can be pre-reviewed.

    Not so sure about this. There's commits from the past that haven't been in a release between, which will just be confusing (even though they are mostly docs commits iirc).

    I'd think it would make more sense to push over master and cherry-pick anything that isn't in the new master, as applicable.

  9. Fishrock123
    added this to the 1.8.0 milestone on Apr 16, 2015

  10. bnoordhuis commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @bnoordhuis
    bnoordhuis
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    I have to say, it all sounds rather complicated.

    Next is essentially v1.x + V8 4.2 + semver-major patches. Master doesn't contain anything interesting. Why not force-push next:master (or if force-pushing sets off alarm bells: delete master and rename or branch from next) and merge v1.x into next/master after every release?

  11. Fishrock123 commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Fishrock123
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Contributor

    and merge v1.x into next/master after every release?

    I think the plan is to backport patches only for LTS, and not do how node is currently doing it?

  12. chrisdickinson commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    chrisdickinson
    on Apr 16, 2015
    ContributorAuthor

    In any case, if we don't care about the commits master has that v1.x doesn't, dropping them is definitely an option and simplifies things a bit. Didn't want to assume we were on with dropping that data, though :)

    I'll revise in a bit.

    On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Jeremiah Senkpiel notifications@github.com wrote:

    and merge v1.x into next/master after every release?

    I think the plan is to backport patches only for LTS, and not do how node is currently doing it?

    —
    Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

  13. bnoordhuis commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @bnoordhuis
    bnoordhuis
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Member

    I think the plan is to backport patches only for LTS, and not do how node is currently doing it?

    Right, I forgot. That's fine then, no up-merges.

  14. fengmk2 commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @fengmk2
    fengmk2
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Contributor

    How about land #1242 into 1.8.0?

  15. Fishrock123 commented on Apr 16, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Fishrock123
    on Apr 16, 2015
    Contributor

    In any case, if we don't care about the commits master has that v1.x doesn't, dropping them is definitely an option and simplifies things a bit. Didn't want to assume we were on with dropping that data, though :)

    Not 100% sure of this. We should do a diff and check what v1.x is missing, then evaluate. :)

  16. 74 remaining items

  17. chrisdickinson commented on Apr 21, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    chrisdickinson
    on Apr 21, 2015
    ContributorAuthor

    OSX, Windows x64 msi, and CentOS look good!

  18. chrisdickinson commented on Apr 21, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    chrisdickinson
    on Apr 21, 2015
    ContributorAuthor

    Announced on twitter. Thanks everyone! I'll leave this issue open for 24 hours and close if there have been no problems since. Will also merge the v1.8.1 changes into master.

  19. Starefossen
    added a commit that references this issue on Apr 21, 2015

    Update to v1.8.1

    4cf03be
  20. mathiasbynens
    added a commit that references this issue on Apr 21, 2015

    2015-04-17 io.js v1.8.0 Release

    c0f8413

  21. julianduque commented on Apr 25, 2015

    @julianduque
    julianduque
    on Apr 25, 2015
    Contributor

    This can be closed now, great job

  22. julianduque
    closed this as completedon Apr 25, 2015

  23. gopat commented on Apr 26, 2015

    @gopat
    gopat
    on Apr 26, 2015

    Sorry to be such a pita, but... ¿aren't the armv6 missing for 1.8.1?

    PD: [OffTopic] Soon i will get my hands on a rpi2 and will probably stop whinning(noticing).

  24. Fishrock123 commented on Apr 26, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Fishrock123
    on Apr 26, 2015
    Contributor

    I think they weren't promoted yet. @chrisdickinson?

  25. gopat commented on Apr 27, 2015

    @gopat
    gopat
    on Apr 27, 2015

    So he is who's meant to promote 'em... well, i think he's got way more important tasks to worry about right now (#1506 for iojs v2.0.0), so this might very well wait 'till 2.0.0 gets out the oven IMHO.

    Bonus: programmer_interrupted.png

    Edited: not displaying image due to size -@Fishrock123

  26. chrisdickinson commented on Apr 27, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    chrisdickinson
    on Apr 27, 2015
    ContributorAuthor

    Reopening until the armv6 build is out. I re-ran tools/release.sh, but there doesn't appear to be anything up there to promote. Should I re-run the entire release build, or is it possible to re-run a single build? This is the release job – most of red there is caused by a jenkins bug. cc'ing @rvagg for advice!

  27. chrisdickinson
    reopened this on Apr 27, 2015

  28. rvagg commented on Apr 28, 2015

    @rvagg
    rvagg
    on Apr 28, 2015
    Member

    @chrisdickinson re-run the entire release build and ping me when you want to promote and I'll clean out everything but armv6

  29. rvagg commented on Apr 28, 2015

    @rvagg
    rvagg
    on Apr 28, 2015
    Member

    or re-run the release build and manually kill all of the non-armv6 builds in jenkins and you'll get the same effect without needing me

  30. chrisdickinson commented on Apr 28, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    chrisdickinson
    on Apr 28, 2015
    ContributorAuthor

    OK! armv6 promoted, it should be good to go. Closing the issue now. Thanks all!

  31. chrisdickinson
    closed this as completedon Apr 28, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions