accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:20:15 GMT
Alright, it looks like the general view is (b) omit 1.4.0 and 1.5.0
changes, and (c) include sub-tasks.

Sean also commented that he'd prefer sub-tasks to be listed last. I'd
also prefer this, if we are going to include them. However, in the
interests of copy/paste convenience, which allows me to see diffs more
easily, I'm going to favor the order that is generated by JIRA, if
that's okay.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +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
View raw message