couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.0 Code Freeze or branching 2.1?
Date Thu, 26 May 2016 20:23:10 GMT
Can someone remind me where the list of 2.0 blockers is?

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
> Also +1, except for the work to get the Windows port running correctly.
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michelle Phung" <michellephung@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:23:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: 2.0 Code Freeze or branching 2.1?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> - Michelle
>>
>> > On May 26, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I think that's better call feature/improvements freeze, since we
>> > still
>> > have to commit the code that includes bugfixes.
>> >
>> > +1
>> > --
>> > ,,,^..^,,,
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Robert Newson
>> >> <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> +1 for code freeze.
>> >>
>> >> The only changes we will merge to master branches must contribute
>> >> toward 2.0 actually shipping.
>> >>
>> >> I would also not make 2.x.x branches until 2.0 is GA. the first
>> >> commit on all those branches should be the release itself.
>> >> Subsequent commits are backported fixes from master only.
>> >>
>> >> Lets explicitly say that we'll take no work for future
>> >> enhancements or fixes until 2.0 ships. We must get this out.
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >>> On 26 May 2016, at 09:10, Andy Wenk <andywenk@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> in my opinion, everybody is interested to add new features on a
>> >>> stable version of CouchDB. So with a code freeze, everybody is
>> >>> asked to help get 2.0 shipped because then, new features can be
>> >>> added with more focus and on a stable release.
>> >>>
>> >>> For me, this sounds better than branching even though, that some
>> >>> people will work on their own repos.
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 for code freeze
>> >>>
>> >>> Side note: as I am not actively developing, my opinion should be
>> >>> taken with low prio because there might be reasons from others
>> >>> to prefer branching.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks to everyone making CouchDB 2.0 great!
>> >>>
>> >>> Andy
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Andy Wenk
>> >>> RockIt!
>> >>>
>> >>> Hamburg / Germany
>> >>>
>> >>> GPG public key:
>> >>> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4F1D0C59BC90917D
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 26 May 2016, at 09:42, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hey all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> last night on IRC Bob brought up a good point: we have ongoing
>> >>>> development going into our repos while we are trying to get 2.0
>> >>>> out the
>> >>>> door. It might be time to split these two.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bob suggested a code freeze until we ship a first 2.0 beta. An
>> >>>> alternative would be to branch out 2.x.x and stabilise that,
>> >>>> port any
>> >>>> fixes to master, where regular development can occur there.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Both alternatives have their pros and cons, but I like the
>> >>>> aspect of a
>> >>>> code freeze that forces everyone to help get the release build
>> >>>> stable.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That said, I fear that most folks would then just commit to
>> >>>> their
>> >>>> personal or other corporate repos (hello Cloudant) and only sync
>> >>>> to ASF
>> >>>> repos when the freeze is over, and not help out with the build.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> E.g. I don’t want to force anyone into anything they don’t want
>> >>>> to do
>> >>>> with an arbitrary policy, but I’d be in support of a code freeze
>> >>>> if
>> >>>> people here would signal that it’d help them focus on a stable
>> >>>> build
>> >>>> as opposed to new feature development.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What do you think?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best
>> >>>> Jan
>> >>>> --
>> >>
>>

Mime
View raw message