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 B91D311A38 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 78291 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2014 23:15:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 78249 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2014 23:15:19 -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 78241 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2014 23:15:19 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:15:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-la0-f41.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username ctubbsii, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:15:18 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id e16so1360609lan.14 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.42.234 with SMTP id r10mr5834lal.66.1399850117174; Sun, 11 May 2014 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.99.67 with HTTP; Sun, 11 May 2014 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <536FFFBF.8070609@gmail.com> References: <536FFFBF.8070609@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:15:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dev branches reflecting minor/major versions, not bugfixes From: Christopher To: Accumulo Dev List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'm thinking the low-impact ones aren't really worth releasing a bugfix version for 1.6.1. They can be rolled up and included in a minor release. I figure 1.6.1 can wait until we find a "you really should patch this if you're using 1.6.0" kind of bug, vs. the "this isn't serious, but you might find it annoying to deal with" kind of bug. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > SGTM. Looks like there aren't currently any fixes of much substance for > 1.6.1 presently, but there are a few that would make for a very-low impact > 1.6.1, and a good 1.5.2 which also includes the fallout tickets shortly > after 1.5.1. Timeframe looks good to me too. > > If we can get that reduced test burden for "real" bug-fix releases hammered > out, a month sounds good to me. > > > On 5/11/2014 6:15 PM, Christopher wrote: >> >> Accumulo developers: >> >> As part of our transition to better versioning standards, and more >> regular releases, with better release planning, I was thinking that >> our development branches should generally reflect an anticipated >> minor/major release version, and not an expected bugfix version. It >> seems to me that we should focus active development on minor/major >> releases, and branch for bugfix releases temporarily, only to push out >> an important bugfix. >> >> With that in mind, I'd like to change the current 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT to >> 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT in expectation for a forthcoming minor release (we >> would have to discuss what kinds of things we'd want in such a >> release. Minimally, I want ACCUMULO-1691), and the master branch to >> 2.0.0 for development on the next major release. >> >> If there's any outstanding bugfixes in the 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch that >> would warrant a separate bugfix release, I think we should discuss >> them and plan for a 1.6.1 within a month or so (along with a 1.5.2). >> >> I'd like to discuss this here a bit and see if this makes sense before >> initiating a vote on it. >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >