I have deferred a bunch of the 0.10.0 issues in order to make it more of a bug fix release and also make the target of end of the month. I do think that it makes sense to forego a 0.9.2 release for now.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:43 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sandeep - > > That is a good point.... > > While 0.10.0 is feature bearing, we may be able to defer more of the > outstanding tasks to an 0.10.1 or 0.11.0 and keep 0.10.0 as close to bug > fixes as possible. > > I will have a look at the changes that have already made it in and see if > we can make that make sense. > > thanks, > > --larry > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Sandeep More <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello Larry, >> >> I think that's a good idea the only thing is we are closer to cutting 0.10 >> release. >> If 0.10 is not drastically different than 0.9.X one might just jump to >> 0.10 >> than going to 0.9.2, I think. >> >> Best, >> Sandeep >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:48 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > All - >> > >> > There have been a number of bug fixes on the 0.9.0 branch in the event >> that >> > we may need to cut an 0.9.2 release for a serious enough issue. >> > >> > Off the top of my head, I know that we have LDAP response paging, >> Location >> > header encoding and just now I had to downgrade httpclient to 4.5.1 to >> fix >> > an issue with SPNEGO+SSL. >> > >> > Since 0.9.1 will not work for secure clusters with SSL enabled, I >> believe >> > that it warrants an 0.9.2 release. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > thanks. >> > >> > --larry >> > >> > >
