If we are concerned with confusion about adoption of new versions, we should make a point to articulate the purpose very clearly in each of the announcements. I was in the combined camp an hour ago and now I'm also thinking we should keep them separate.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > No we did not bundle any release announcements prior. I also have to agree > with Bill -- I don't really see how there would be confusion with a > properly worded announcement. > > Happy to work with anyone who has concerns in this regard to come up with > something that is agreeable. I do think they should be separate. > > > On 9/19/14, 1:02 AM, Mike Drob wrote: > >> Did we bundle 1.5.1/1.6.0? If not, they were fairly close together, I >> think. Historically, we have not done a great job of distinguishing our >> release lines, so that has led to confusion. Maybe I'm on the path to >> talking myself out of a combined announcement here. >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:57 PM, William Slacum < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not to be a total jerk, but what's unclear about 1.5 < 1.6? Lots of >>> projects have multiple release lines and it's not an issue. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 to combining. I've already had questions about upgrading to "this >>>> >>> latest >>> >>>> release" from somebody currently on the 1.6 line. Our release narrative >>>> >>> is >>> >>>> not clear and we should not muddle the waters. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Should we wait to do a release announcement until 1.6.1, so we can >>>>> >>>> batch >>> >>>> the two? >>>>> >>>>> My main concern here is that I don't want to encourage new 1.5.x >>>>> >>>> adoption >>> >>>> when we have 1.6.x, and having two announcements could be confusing to >>>>> >>>> new >>>> >>>>> users who aren't sure which version to start using. We could issue an >>>>> announcement that primarily mentions 1.6.1, and also mentions 1.5.2 >>>>> >>>> second. >>>> >>>>> That way, people will see 1.6.x as the stable/focus release, but will >>>>> >>>> still >>>> >>>>> inform 1.5.x users of updates. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Vote passes with 3 +1's and nothing else. Huge thank you to those who >>>>>> >>>>> made >>>>> >>>>>> the time to participate. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll finish up the rest of the release work tonight. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/15/14, 12:24 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Devs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.5.2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tag: 1.5.2rc1 >>>>>>> SHA1: 039a2c28bdd474805f34ee33f138b009edda6c4c >>>>>>> Staging Repository: >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >>>>>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1014/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Source tarball: >>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >>>>>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1014/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. >>>>>>> 2/accumulo-1.5.2-src.tar.gz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Binary tarball: >>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >>>>>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1014/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. >>>>>>> 2/accumulo-1.5.2-bin.tar.gz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash >>>>>>> >>>>>> for a >>> >>>> given artifact.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signing keys available at: >>>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Over 1.5.1, we have 109 issues resolved >>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a= >>>>>>> blob;f=CHANGES;h=c2892d6e9b1c6c9b96b2a58fc901a76363ece8b0;hb= >>>>>>> 039a2c28bdd474805f34ee33f138b009edda6c4c >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Testing: all unit and functional tests are passing and ingested 1B >>>>>>> entries using CI w/ agitation over rc0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vote will be open until Friday, August 19th 12:00AM UTC (8/18 8:00PM >>>>>>> >>>>>> ET, >>>> >>>>> 8/18 5:00PM PT) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
