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 0E75E10101 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 28161 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2014 18:39:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 27952 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2014 18:39:35 -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 27828 invoked by uid 99); 20 Feb 2014 18:39:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:39:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mdrob@cloudera.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.176] (HELO mail-ob0-f176.google.com) (209.85.214.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:39:22 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id gq1so2486646obb.21 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:39:02 -0800 (PST) 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=1eL6bvwVq7+kzyMGYYtwPvHr4uWfgVYKzFL+V5ug7PI=; b=gYjsvUq5tgOhfzo4AmuXl+PehnwdPLPySxlehjtfWKvTYY8Ve0PQhi7YmO7WWmc+3G q8EaX7Z5noNlfsMGUXiVQBl7IIvL1X90dsfl3Fv7d0eWCmmDIFXe6bJQF1irhhT+k48m 8toeIr3lJ+l20ytpvsgdwLGlHyvAZFdUeC+WpQ6u69csblDz5iZn49PSkPHMbrDEJH9l 0MWH90Yo44ziINJQV5ZMoaWclW5NRRtLWW4zWDusYk1ZN0hB/0F7mdSAWz89K030sBHL l+f3A3ANiHdYJVXxJ3cWQO4zUTs0dYiR9LvHro7TClt4lPBAC0SpNQupiEt3cL4g06aj vGPw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm9ul9bFEcXwOaXazH5QrqU/rlVZUPTsXh2cyClbGPP4rKHNUyFFuBxWlAAx2dsv+iZ3+T1 X-Received: by 10.60.145.197 with SMTP id sw5mr3182589oeb.58.1392921541891; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:39:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.95.161 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:38:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53064AE9.7060605@gmail.com> References: <53052278.8050402@gmail.com> <53064513.9010103@gmail.com> <53064AE9.7060605@gmail.com> From: Mike Drob Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:38:41 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d4858b46a7204f2dad1af X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b5d4858b46a7204f2dad1af Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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. > --047d7b5d4858b46a7204f2dad1af--