zsh-workers
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* We should get 5.9** out soon
@ 2022-03-30 16:51 Bart Schaefer
  2022-03-31  0:34 ` dana
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-03-30 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zsh hackers list

Lots of accumulated fixes, but probably the most important is to
un-break line-buffered input (workers/49792), since that problem was
introduced by the 5.8.1 security release.

** Or 6.0 or whatever we're calling it.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-30 16:51 We should get 5.9** out soon Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-03-31  0:34 ` dana
  2022-03-31  0:48   ` Bart Schaefer
                     ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dana @ 2022-03-31  0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer, Zsh hackers list; +Cc: Daniel Shahaf

On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Lots of accumulated fixes, but probably the most important is to
> un-break line-buffered input (workers/49792), since that problem was
> introduced by the 5.8.1 security release.

I'm ready whenever.

@Daniel, did you want to see us sort out the VCS_Info escaping stuff we
pushed back from 5.8.1? I'm not in a position to steer that myself; if
you're not either we can push it back again.

Is there anything else that anybody would like to see go in (besides
the dedication we discussed off-list)? Any timing considerations?

On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> ** Or 6.0 or whatever we're calling it.

Does anyone have any strong feelings about 5.9 vs 6.0? I don't.

(Again i've only been loosely paying attention lately, sorry if i've
missed anything)

dana


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31  0:34 ` dana
@ 2022-03-31  0:48   ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-03-31 10:23   ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-03-31 10:47   ` Daniel Shahaf
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-03-31  0:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dana; +Cc: Zsh hackers list, Daniel Shahaf

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 5:35 PM dana <dana@dana.is> wrote:
>
> On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > ** Or 6.0 or whatever we're calling it.
>
> Does anyone have any strong feelings about 5.9 vs 6.0? I don't.

The text describing "Incompatibilities" in README is longer than
anything since 4.2 => 5.0, if that's any help in deciding.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31  0:34 ` dana
  2022-03-31  0:48   ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-03-31 10:23   ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-03-31 10:47   ` Daniel Shahaf
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-03-31 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zsh hackers list

> On 31 March 2022 at 01:34 dana <dana@dana.is> wrote:
> On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > Lots of accumulated fixes, but probably the most important is to
> > un-break line-buffered input (workers/49792), since that problem was
> > introduced by the 5.8.1 security release.
> 
> I'm ready whenever.

That's great, thanks.  I agree sooner rather than later is better; I see
Lawrence is chasing some bits and pieces which might prod a few udpates
but none of those looks particularly crucial if they don't.
 
> Does anyone have any strong feelings about 5.9 vs 6.0? I don't.

Not very strong, but it has been a long time, and definitely worth getting
all and sundry to upgrade, so 6.0 might be a reasonable choice.

pws


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31  0:34 ` dana
  2022-03-31  0:48   ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-03-31 10:23   ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-03-31 10:47   ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-03-31 10:54     ` Axel Beckert
  2022-03-31 11:05     ` Peter Stephenson
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-03-31 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

dana wrote on Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:34 +00:00:
> On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> Lots of accumulated fixes, but probably the most important is to
>> un-break line-buffered input (workers/49792), since that problem was
>> introduced by the 5.8.1 security release.
>

I don't think the regression in 5.8.1 is a reason to release a 5.9; it's
only a reason to release a 5.8.2.  That could have a shorter pre-release
testing period ("soak"), and wouldn't force people to choose between the
regression in 5.8.1 and any as-yet-undiscovered regressions 5.9 might
feature (which is more likely than usual because of how large the
5.8→5.9 diff is).

We _should_ release 5.9 — it's been way too long since 5.8 — but not
because of that regression.

> I'm ready whenever.
>
> @Daniel, did you want to see us sort out the VCS_Info escaping stuff we
> pushed back from 5.8.1? I'm not in a position to steer that myself; if
> you're not either we can push it back again.
>

Do I want to progress the open issue, consense upon it, and resolve it?
Yes.  Do I think it's a release blocker?  No, because it's neither
a regression nor severe enough.

> Is there anything else that anybody would like to see go in (besides
> the dedication we discussed off-list)? Any timing considerations?
>

Over here, I haven't yet gotten around to reviewing the threads earlier
this year where Bart mentioned a few open issues.  I'd like to do so,
but that shouldn't block the release either.

> On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> ** Or 6.0 or whatever we're calling it.
>
> Does anyone have any strong feelings about 5.9 vs 6.0? I don't.
>

I'd prefer 5.9 because we haven't made a backwards-incompatible change.

> (Again i've only been loosely paying attention lately, sorry if i've
> missed anything)

So, I'd recommend to first release a 5.8.2 that's 5.8.1 + select patches
(including the regression fix) and then to start the 5.9 release train.
If needed, I could try to find time to RM 5.8.2, but honestly I'm
stretched thin as it is.

Cheers,

Daniel
(excuse brevity)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31 10:47   ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-03-31 10:54     ` Axel Beckert
  2022-03-31 11:05     ` Peter Stephenson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-03-31 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:47:52AM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> >> ** Or 6.0 or whatever we're calling it.
> >
> > Does anyone have any strong feelings about 5.9 vs 6.0? I don't.
> 
> I'd prefer 5.9 because we haven't made a backwards-incompatible change.

+1 for Semantic Versioning (https://semver.org/)

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5      /~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/
Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org  \ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet
Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org  X
https://axel.beckert.ch/   / \  I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31 10:47   ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-03-31 10:54     ` Axel Beckert
@ 2022-03-31 11:05     ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-03-31 23:31       ` Daniel Shahaf
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-03-31 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers

> On 31 March 2022 at 11:47 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> dana wrote on Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:34 +00:00:
> > On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> >> Lots of accumulated fixes, but probably the most important is to
> >> un-break line-buffered input (workers/49792), since that problem was
> >> introduced by the 5.8.1 security release.
> 
> I don't think the regression in 5.8.1 is a reason to release a 5.9; it's
> only a reason to release a 5.8.2.  That could have a shorter pre-release
> testing period ("soak"), and wouldn't force people to choose between the
> regression in 5.8.1 and any as-yet-undiscovered regressions 5.9 might
> feature (which is more likely than usual because of how large the
> 5.8→5.9 diff is).

The logic is entirely reasonable, but in practice I think stopgap fixes
are likely just to put things off further.  I think it's worth getting
out 5.9(?) and seeing if there's still a market for backporting non-security
fixes to 5.8.2 --- there may not be.  (This may be the sort of thinking
Bart had in mind.)

We've never required an incompatible change to bump the major number before
(there's often been one anyway), but given there's no single determiner it's
something you might well take into account.

pws


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31 11:05     ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-03-31 23:31       ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-04-02 22:42         ` dana
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-03-31 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Peter Stephenson wrote on Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:05 +00:00:
>> On 31 March 2022 at 11:47 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> dana wrote on Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:34 +00:00:
>> > On Wed 30 Mar 2022, at 11:51, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> >> Lots of accumulated fixes, but probably the most important is to
>> >> un-break line-buffered input (workers/49792), since that problem was
>> >> introduced by the 5.8.1 security release.
>> 
>> I don't think the regression in 5.8.1 is a reason to release a 5.9; it's
>> only a reason to release a 5.8.2.  That could have a shorter pre-release
>> testing period ("soak"), and wouldn't force people to choose between the
>> regression in 5.8.1 and any as-yet-undiscovered regressions 5.9 might
>> feature (which is more likely than usual because of how large the
>> 5.8→5.9 diff is).
>
> The logic is entirely reasonable, but in practice I think stopgap fixes
> are likely just to put things off further.  I think it's worth getting
> out 5.9(?) and seeing if there's still a market for backporting non-security
> fixes to 5.8.2 --- there may not be.  (This may be the sort of thinking
> Bart had in mind.)
>

Sure, I wouldn't mind that.  I just figured it wouldn't be desirable to
delay release of the regression fix until 5.9's soak is over.  (We could
release 5.8.2 next week if we wanted to, but a 5.9 that's >2 years after
5.8 will likely want to be tested for longer than that.)

> We've never required an incompatible change to bump the major number before
> (there's often been one anyway), but given there's no single determiner it's
> something you might well take into account.

(Nothing to add to this topic at the moment.)

Cheers,

Daniel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-03-31 23:31       ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-04-02 22:42         ` dana
  2022-04-03 16:07           ` Peter Stephenson
                             ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dana @ 2022-04-02 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zsh hackers list

I hope to post a test release within the next week. I need to go through
the recent activity myself and do a few documentation updates, and Mikael
suggested that i might also wait for Bart's patch from w/49955 to go in.
If anyone else wants anything in for testing, please try to get it done
soon.

Re: 5.9 vs 6.0, based on the discussion here and on IRC it seems like we
have two strong 5.9s (Daniel and Axel), one weak 5.9 (Matthew), and two
weak 6.0s (pws and Bart). Mikael and i are indifferent. Please let me
know if i've misinterpreted anyone's position. If not, i think the 5.9s
have it so far.

PS: There has been some discussion in the past about changing the release
process so that instead of going directly off master we e.g. make a 5.9
branch as the 'cycle' is winding down and release off that. Since we
never settled on any of those process changes my current plan is to just
release off master like usual, but let me know if anyone feels
differently about that too.

dana


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-04-02 22:42         ` dana
@ 2022-04-03 16:07           ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-04-03 16:39           ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-04-03 17:04           ` Branching (was Re: We should get 5.9** out soon) Bart Schaefer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-04-03 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 17:42 -0500, dana wrote:
> Re: 5.9 vs 6.0, based on the discussion here and on IRC it seems like we
> have two strong 5.9s (Daniel and Axel), one weak 5.9 (Matthew), and two
> weak 6.0s (pws and Bart). Mikael and i are indifferent. Please let me
> know if i've misinterpreted anyone's position. If not, i think the 5.9s
> have it so far.

Yes, sounds like we should stick with 5.9.

pws




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: We should get 5.9** out soon
  2022-04-02 22:42         ` dana
  2022-04-03 16:07           ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-04-03 16:39           ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-04-03 17:04           ` Branching (was Re: We should get 5.9** out soon) Bart Schaefer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-04-03 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dana; +Cc: Zsh hackers list

On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:47 PM dana <dana@dana.is> wrote:
>
> Mikael
> suggested that i might also wait for Bart's patch from w/49955 to go in.

If nobody saw anything wrong with that, I'll commit it.  There are
those nagging deltas between the multibyte code structure and the
non-multibyte but if nothing appears broken, that can await future
analysis.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Branching (was Re: We should get 5.9** out soon)
  2022-04-02 22:42         ` dana
  2022-04-03 16:07           ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-04-03 16:39           ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-04-03 17:04           ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-04-03 19:34             ` dana
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-04-03 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dana; +Cc: Zsh hackers list

On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:47 PM dana <dana@dana.is> wrote:
>
> PS: There has been some discussion in the past about changing the release
> process so that instead of going directly off master we e.g. make a 5.9
> branch as the 'cycle' is winding down and release off that.

The benefit of a separate release branch is that we don't have to
coordinate a code freeze among the full group with "git push" access.
That was not much of a problem when we had only about three people in
that set, but as we've opened it to a larger number of trusted
individuals it takes more effort.

Aside from just proceeding as we have been (which is fine for 5.9), an
alternate plan would be  to have a development branch and only merge
it back to the main branch at release time.  That would avoid creating
several possibly-active branches.

On the other hand, if we want to introduce "long-term support" for
major version numbers, having a branch to which events like the 5.8 ->
5.8.1 security release could be pushed would be the way to go.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: Branching (was Re: We should get 5.9** out soon)
  2022-04-03 17:04           ` Branching (was Re: We should get 5.9** out soon) Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-04-03 19:34             ` dana
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dana @ 2022-04-03 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: Zsh hackers list

On Sun 3 Apr 2022, at 12:04, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> The benefit of a separate release branch is that we don't have to
> coordinate a code freeze among the full group with "git push" access.
> ...
> On the other hand, if we want to introduce "long-term support" for
> major version numbers, having a branch to which events like the 5.8 ->
> 5.8.1 security release could be pushed would be the way to go.

Yes, these were the two situations i was thinking of that could benefit
from having separate branches. Branching off at release-freeze time and
then back-porting any necessary additions from master is the method i
have experience with, but maybe some people on the team would be annoyed
by the extra steps

dana


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-04-03 19:34 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-03-30 16:51 We should get 5.9** out soon Bart Schaefer
2022-03-31  0:34 ` dana
2022-03-31  0:48   ` Bart Schaefer
2022-03-31 10:23   ` Peter Stephenson
2022-03-31 10:47   ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-03-31 10:54     ` Axel Beckert
2022-03-31 11:05     ` Peter Stephenson
2022-03-31 23:31       ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-04-02 22:42         ` dana
2022-04-03 16:07           ` Peter Stephenson
2022-04-03 16:39           ` Bart Schaefer
2022-04-03 17:04           ` Branching (was Re: We should get 5.9** out soon) Bart Schaefer
2022-04-03 19:34             ` dana

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).