Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 022A410787 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 99921 invoked by uid 500); 31 Oct 2013 18:27:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 99877 invoked by uid 500); 31 Oct 2013 18:27:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 99869 invoked by uid 99); 31 Oct 2013 18:27:13 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:27:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of busbey@cloudera.com designates 209.85.192.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.176] (HELO mail-pd0-f176.google.com) (209.85.192.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:27:09 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id g10so2747193pdj.35 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=jPSCWQnm4mx1+wm80cEv3hR/TX3sk87Anbb40Y5FjPY=; b=eS5fQ5hilQjitRTjTMVyW4B7Dj7DBV/ZDmdohwGbADNpnJQdx2CLQpttvBQjKpJhnx ZC/UxIsGKTlH8UbGKqgkWEo0bkpy7EhawyrnE/xQFdSBRvb488eVAGZ9W51EvPXCdXy5 qA1T8CpN/ojEDlv4JWYYwTkllZNg5/fUv+O65kDW4AAQnY9WVqBLw6n4TDXodUw3BQB1 0FURED0Ihc6rgB5OorZ0vIW7/mI5r/sDqVlDM62IqMPdr3ap5jQf+5GUoN4MnEGL4uDL XYFIGr7DWQzrxJgbKcKu4UCm47wVDOpKlhDbPpezz8PNL5OiQGugW0rQyjKtnmkCWyjV +3jg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnwYEt/j0Uk4sDElzZFjGbVtWuYolm4IvZiGIsUn0bbeUfPk/xClVHU9HICjvE6CalTF0j6 X-Received: by 10.66.230.138 with SMTP id sy10mr3391257pac.103.1383244009154; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.83.37 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:26:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sean Busbey Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:26:29 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze To: "dev@accumulo apache. org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15ab8dcdc17b04ea0d9737 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b15ab8dcdc17b04ea0d9737 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Christopher wrote: > >> I think a week extension would be good for projects that are under >> review, but I don't think it should be extended for development on >> those features (except to address issues from the review). This would >> also encourage people to push something potentially disruptive to >> ReviewBoard instead of committing at the last minute and having to >> revert it later. That would allow us to review stuff that has been >> ready, but not committed because people have been busy finishing other >> features for the feature freeze and haven't had time to review it yet. >> >> > Just to make sure I'm reading this right: > > you're saying we include things that are in review board as of the > original feature freeze date? And then they get pushed post-feature-freeze > date once their reviews have iterated to acceptance? > > > If I am interpreting Chris' proposal correctly, I like it better than a general one week extension. In addition to the benefits he lists, I think it also makes us much more likely to get 1-commit-per-ticket, which I'm a huge fan of. -- Sean --047d7b15ab8dcdc17b04ea0d9737--