accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 03:19:20 GMT
+1 b
+0 c


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> +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