Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6384010E09 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79652 invoked by uid 500); 28 Apr 2014 23:29:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 79618 invoked by uid 500); 28 Apr 2014 23:29:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 79610 invoked by uid 99); 28 Apr 2014 23:29:57 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:29:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-la0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username ctubbsii, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:29:56 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id pn19so5560076lab.34 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:29:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.116.43 with SMTP id jt11mr3205143lab.41.1398727795034; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.96.138 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:29:54 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5 From: Christopher To: Accumulo Dev List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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