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: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:41:46 GMT
b, please.

I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done 
previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.

On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
> All,
>
> Mike had an objection to the inclusion of 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes in
> the CHANGES file for 1.6.0.
> That objection was based on his understanding of a previous thread.
> I'm not sure there was ever consensus on what to do, and I had a
> different understanding of the results of that thread. I'd like to
> resolve this with extreme haste.
>
> Background:
>
> The current 1.6.0-RC CHANGES have included 1.4.0, and 1.5.0, and
> 1.6.0, with the expectation that 1.6.1 would contain all those, plus
> 1.6.1, and 1.6.2 would contain all those, plus 1.6.2 changes, etc.
> This fits with how we are currently labeling things in JIRA.
> However, we could just as easily drop 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes from the
> file, and it still matches what we're doing in JIRA. This is what
> happened with 1.5.0.
>
> So, which do we do? a or b:
>
> a) include 1.4.0, 1.5.0
> b) do not include 1.4.0, 1.5.0
>
> Additionally, should we (c or d):
>
> c) include sub-tasks
> d) do not include sub-tasks
>
> I'll update the CHANGES for RC5 according to the majority view from
> this discussion at the time I prep RC5 (probably tomorrow morning).
> I lean towards (b) and (d), but don't feel very strongly. I just don't
> want to see a released blocked on this file.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>

Mime
View raw message