accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:45:47 GMT
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

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