Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6+9D+NOCpDQpN4a_Vtx_XQfkHJv7aUsAm+hcgRQz2W=bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAL5zq9ZkNGTDgcvXXCgGCX0few6TCLt3rhEAj8+F4euOf_4ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <535EE73A.70000@gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+9D+NOCpDQpN4a_Vtx_XQfkHJv7aUsAm+hcgRQz2W=bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:48:29 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAD-fFU+cDtjg7UD=Wuq00x2+uXZ7extFePawz8oWXfNB=ODD7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a65302619ed04f824a218

--001a113a65302619ed04f824a218
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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

--001a113a65302619ed04f824a218--