On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:01PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Changing this into a [DISCUSS] thread to not confuse the vote. > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > That'd be awesome, Alan. > > > > We have a couple of sound BOM update proposals, so I will restart the vote > > once I hear from you on these 2 components. > > I'm also curious about the list of supported platforms (and I admit this is > an open ended policy question, rather than anything else): what do > we, as a community, want the overlap between Bigtop 0.3.0 and > Bigtop 0.3.1 supported platforms be? Or is that even an issue?
A continuation of this logic would lead to preventing new major release of
comprising components from going into a maintenance release, would it not?
Which is perfectly fine with me, btw. I want to undestand what our release
principles are:
- major release includes
new major versions of the components/new components
new versions of supported OSes/new OSes
- maintenance release includes
minor and subminor versions of the components/no new components
same set of supported OSes
If this seems like a reasonable rule of thumb - let me reshape the BOM
accordingly e.g. put Fedora 15 instead of Fedora 16.
Cos
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
