accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:02:32 GMT
+1 b
+0 c


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> b, and prefer c over d but not overly so
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message