I had previously volunteered to RM a 1.3 when it came around but I believe we should pass the hat around as much as possible. If you want to take it Mikhail, I say +1 to that.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]> wrote: > Updating to the next minor release is supposed to be pretty straightforward > and low-risky, > so I don't think I see justification/value to maintain them for long time. > > (if there's no RM for 1.3 yet I can volunteer to) > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > bq. will we also be deprecating minor releases faster? > > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Is it time to branch for 1.3 ? > > > > > > > > Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard difficult > > > > process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for 1.3 > > and > > > > start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a monthly > > > cadence > > > > for minor releases going? > > > > > > Are we aiming for a monthly cadence on minor releases? That's going to > > > burn through RMs pretty fast. Or will we also be deprecating minor > > > releases faster? > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
