accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:03:03 GMT
If we need to, I can. I'd prefer to not have to call a vote, though.

On 2/20/14, 10:38 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
> I'd prefer just notes from the latest major release in the CHANGES file.
> You could always call for a vote on this. :)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/14, 10:23 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>>>>>   There have been a lot of good ideas mentioned.  What do we want to
do
>>>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.5.1?  I would not be opposed to waiting a few days
on the 1.5.1
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> if someone wants to create nice user friendly release
notes.  Or for
>>>>>>>>> 1.5.1
>>>>>>>>> we could just continue to do what was done for 1.4.X
releases.   For
>>>>>>>>> 1.6.0
>>>>>>>>> I think we should create a user friendly summary of whats
important
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd prefer to not hold up 1.5.1 for something like this, and
would
>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> just follow suite with 1.4. By this, you mean having all CHANGES
from
>>>>> 1.4.X
>>>>>>> and 1.5.0 in addition to the 1.5.1 changes, correct? Is this
>>>>> acceptable to
>>>>>>> everyone? I know there were other suggestions made and don't
want to
>>>>>>> prematurely squash discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking taking the 1.5.0 changes file and adding the 1.5.1 stuff
>>>> to
>>>>> it.  If we did anything w/ 1.4, we would would only want to take 1.4.0
>>>>> changes and add that after 1.5.0.  Not all changes in 1.4.[1.2.3.4] are
>>>> in
>>>>> 1.5 series and any changes that are in both are hopefully marked
>>>> properly
>>>>> in jira and already in the 1.5.X list. Since the 1.4.0 changes were not
>>>>> listed in 1.5.0, I am not neutral on adding that in 1.5.1.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> s/not neutral/not not neutral/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Because that clarification makes things simpler :P
>>
>> I'm still unsure if 1.5.0 did not contain 1.4 changes intentionally or by
>> omission. I feel like Christopher had said that was unintentional, but I'm
>> not sure anymore. I'm not super opinionated on whether or not 1.5 contains
>> 1.4 changes. I can see arguments for and against doing it and am fine
>> seeing it either way.
>>
>> Overall, I'd rather just get to some consensus on the subject.
>>
>

Mime
View raw message