By this logic, 0.98 tag should be renamed to 0.97, yes? On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I think we should remove the 0.96 tag. Stack said the other day that > he should have just renamed 0.96 to 0.95 rather than moving all the issues. > > The rest is already what I have been doing for issues I am committing (so > +1 :) ), but I did notice that not all issues are tagged correctly. > > > -- Lars > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:15 AM > Subject: Re: Marking fix version > > > The argument for excluding the 0.96 tag makes sense. Can we agree to do > this: > > > Commit only to trunk: Mark with 0.98 > Commit to 0.95 and trunk : Mark with 0.98, and 0.95.x > Commit to 0.94.x and 0.95, and trunk: Mark with 0.98, 0.95.x, and 0.94.x > > Commit to 89-fb: Mark with 89-fb. > Commit site fixes: no version > > Should we remove 0.96 tag for now until the branch appears again? > > Thanks, > Jon. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank Jon, > > > >I do not think we have to include anticipated future branches in the tags. > >The release notes are not accumulative but list changes made for each > release. > > > >So if something is in 0.95.x a 0.96 tag neither needed nor wanted (IMHO) > until we actually have a *parallel* 0.96 branch. > > > >That is why all 0.95+trunk changes *have* to be tagged with 0.98 as well, > because at this point the two branches are in parallel. Actually we should > go through and make that so in jira. > > > >That means the 0.96 tag is not needed right now (and in fact will make > just confusing, because at the time we do release 0.96 we'll see the same > issue in the release notes twice) > > > >-- Lars > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:40 AM > >Subject: Marking fix version > > > > > >Hey all, > > > >I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page here when we committing > >code and that we are consistent when marking fix version in the jira. Its > >pretty important that we get this right because our release notes are > >generated from these as of 0.94. > > > >Here's what I'm doing and suggesting > > > >Commit only to trunk: Mark with 0.98 > >Commit to 0.95 and trunk : Mark with 0.98, 0.96, and 0.95.x > >Commit to 0.94.x and 0.95, and trunk: Mark with 0.98, 0.96, 0.95.x, and > >0.94.x > >Commit to 89-fb: Mark with 89-fb. > >Commit site fixes: no version > > > >My understanding is that 0.96 will be a branch off of 0.95 -- so any fix > to > >0.95 is a fix to 0.96 until 0.96 branches. > > > >Thanks, > >Jon. > > > >-- > >// Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >// Software Engineer, Cloudera > >// [email protected] > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // [email protected] >
