Alright, it looks like the general view is (b) omit 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes, and (c) include sub-tasks.
Sean also commented that he'd prefer sub-tasks to be listed last. I'd also prefer this, if we are going to include them. However, in the interests of copy/paste convenience, which allows me to see diffs more easily, I'm going to favor the order that is generated by JIRA, if that's okay. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 b > +0 c > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 b >> +0 c >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > b, and prefer c over d but not overly so >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >> > 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 >> > >>
